Miller v. Addison

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellee brought a suit against the appellant in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County to recover for the loss of services of his wife and injury to a horse and 'buggy resulting from the running away of the horse, while being driven by the wife along one of the turnpikes of the county. The accident is alleged to have been caused by the fright of the horse from noise of escaping steam and from the propul ⁷³² sion of a traction steam engine being carried along a public highway called the Chaney road, leading from the Columbia road to the Ashton and Columbia turnpike, and owned by the defendant. The case was removed to the Circuit Court for Howard County, and on trial before a jury, resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant has appealed from the judgment, entered thereon.

The questions in the case are narrow and relate solely to the ruling of the Court upon the defendant’s rejected prayers. By the defendant’s first and second prayers- the Court was asked to rule as a matter of law, that there was no evidence legally sufficient to show that the injury was caused by the negligence of the defendant or her servants. The seventh and eighth prayers submitted the proposition that the defendant had the legal right to operate her engine on the public highway, provided due care and diligence were used and exercised in so operating it, and if the jury. believed that the engine was so used, their verdict must be for the defendant. These prayers were rejected, and form the basis of the appeal.

The defendant’s third prayer, which was granted by the Court, ruled that the burden of the proof is upon the plaintiff to show that the injury complained of was caused by the negligence of- the defendant or her agent, and unless the plaintiff shall so satisfy the jury by the preponderance of proof, their verdict must be for the defendant. If there was evidence then legally sufficient to be left to the jury, the defendant cannot complain of the Court’s ruling, because the law was properly submitted by her third prayer, and as granted contained the whole law of the case. The first point for us to determine, as raised by the first and second prayers, is whether the evidence was legally sufficient to be submitted to the jury, to show negligence on the part of the defendant to warrant a recovery by the plaintiff. This question is usually presented in every damage case, and it has been so often and so recently passed upon by us that we do not deem it necessary to refer to the cases establishing the rule upon the subject.

It is well settled law that if there ⁷³³ is no evidence legally sufficient to entitle a recovery, the Court will so instruct the jury, and withdraw the case from its consideration. On the other hand if there is any evidence from which a jury can reach a conclusion, or, as the rule is stated, “if a rational mind can fairly deduce the conclusion sought to be established by the evidence,” it becomes the duty of the Court to submit the case to the jury. Each case however must necessarily be determined upon its own facts. The statute, Code, Art. 27, sec. 259, requires that every traction engine when propelled by steam upon or over any public road in the State, shall be accompanied by at least two men, whose duty it shall be to so conduct the engine as to cause as little harm as possible to horses, ridden, driven or led