Mayor of Baltimore v. Holmes

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This suit was brought to recover damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff in attempting to lead his horse attached to a cart, over a pile or ridge of stones, which the declaration alleged, the defendant had negligently suffered to obstruct one of the public streets in t,he city of Baltimore. The defendant through its Water Department, was laying water mains along the west side of Charles, between Mulberry and Saratoga streets, the whole work including repaving, being performed within five days. The plaintiff was hauling materials from the old “ Albert Mansion” on Charles street, north of Saratoga, and on coming to the house on the 4th of July for a load, he found a pile or ridge of stones, along the west side of the street, extending in front and about fifty yards, beyond the house.

No attempt was made by the plaintiff at this time to cross over the stones, but stopping his horse on the east side of the street, he carried with the assistance of persons working in the house, the materials, to the cart. On the 8th of July, finding , the street still obstructed by .the pile of stones, he loaded his cart in the same manner, but when he returned for a second load, not finding any one to help him, and the materials being, heavy, he attempted to lead the horse over the stones and in so d.oing, the horse stumbled, and in falling.struck the plaintiff on the leg and broke it. Th,e horse vsras sound and steady and the plaintiff was carefully leading, himn over. ■ Evidence was offered by the defendant to prove that the whole work in laying the mains occupied about five ²⁴⁹ days and that it was carefully and promptly done, the men employed being experienced and competent workmen. The plaintiff' was cautioned to be careful in crossing the ridge of stones, because the witness thought it was dangerous.

Upon these facts the Court instructed the jury : 1st. That if the defendant “pulled up the pavement and allowed the same negligently to remain for a considerable length of time, by reason of which the plaintiff' in the course of his employment and duty, and without any negligence or fault on his part, had his leg broken, then the plaintiff was entitled to recover.” 2nd. That if' the defendant found it necessary to lay water mains on Charles street, along and at the point where the plaintiff was injured, and the whole work was done by the employes in a proper manner, and with reasonable care and diligence, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.