Mayor of Baltimore v. Beck

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. . The plaintiff, who is a married woman, brought a suit, on the 20th day of August, 1900, in the Superior Court of Baltimore City against the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, for personal injuries received by her while driving along one of the public avenues of Baltimore City, known as Fulton avenue. The case was tried before a jury in the Baltimore City Court and the plaintiff recovered a judgment for $ 1,000. The cause of action is thus stated and set out in the plaintiff’s declaration; that Messrs.

Thomas and Morgan of the City of Baltimore and each of them placed and allowed to remain for a long time a large quantity of bricks and other building materials in .the public highway of Baltimore known as Fulton avenue, at or near its intersection with Walbrook avenue ; that these bricks and materials were placed so as unnecessarily to obstruct the highway, in an improper and negligent manner, and during the night-time were left without a light or signal to indicate danger, as required by the city ordinance; that on the night of June 26th, 1900,the defendant negligently permitted the obstructions to remain on and upon Fulton avenue, at or near its intersection and negligently permitted the avenue to be and remain in bad repair and condition; omitted to have it properly lighted in the night-time and per ¹⁸⁹ mitted it to remain in an unsafe condition for ordinary travel, in consequence whereof a carriage with the plaintiff, passing through the avenue, collided with the obstruction, and was thereby overturned, the plaintiff thrown out, and in consequence thereof was severely and permanently injured; that the injuries to the plaintiff were directly caused by the negligence and want of care of the defendant and without fault, or want of care on the part of the plaintiff, directly thereto contributing. The questions presented for our consideration arise upon exceptions to the granting of the plaintiff’s prayers and to the rejected prayers of the defendant. At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendant offered three-prayers, to the effect that the plaintiff had offered no evidence of negligence on the part of the city and that the case be withdrawn from the jury. We find no error in the ruling of the Court upon the rejection of the prayers in this exception and as they were subsequently offered at the close of the case, we will consider them on the defendant’s second exception.

It appears from the evidence that the plaintiff was in a carriage with-her husband and child, on the night of the accident and was driving along Fulton avenue, Baltimore, and drove into-a pile of bricks lying in the street and was injured. The bricks had been placed in the street by certain builders and contractors, who were building houses at or near the place of the accident. The evidence further shows that there was no light burning at the time or at the place of the accident, either on the pile of bricks or in the street; that the city electric light was out and had not been burning at Fulton and Walbrook avenues for several nights before and after the accident, and there was no light burning to point out the obstruction in the street. There was also testimony that it was a dark night and the entire avenne was dark; that the bricks were scattered from the curb-stone to the car track, so as to obstruct the free passage of vehicles except down the car track.

It is contended upon the part of the appellant that if any liability exists at all in this case it rests upon Messrs. Thomas & Morgan, the contractors and builders, and not upon the de ¹⁹⁰ fendant, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, because by ordinance (sec. 87 of Art. 48 of the City Code), it is provided that “ whenever any piles of bricks, stones, lumber or other building material shall be left in any of the streets, lanes, or alleys of the city, during the night, they shall be designated by displaying a lighted lamp or lantern at such part of the same,.as to be easily observed by persons passing along the street; ” and that the injuries to the plaintiff were caused by the failure of the contractors to keep a light burning on the obstruction placed by them in the avenue where the accident happened. The question, then, comes to this, what was the duty of the defendant under