State ex rel. Anderson v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

Urner, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The equitable plaintiffs are 'the widow and daughter of Edward T. Anderson, who, while walking on the defendant railroad company’s track, was struck and killed by one of its trains. At the time of 'the accident, which occurred about half-past seven o'clock on the morning of February 10th, 1922, Mr. Anderson, who was a building" contractor, was on his way from his home, between Hanover and Harwood stations on the defendant’s line in Howard Oounty, to a cottage near the latter station which he then had under construction. He had proceeded westwardly toward Harwood on the westbound track for a distance of six hundred feet or more, when he was killed by a train coming from the east.

A daughter Who had accompanied him from his home to the railroad, and who then turned eastwardly towards Hanover Station, saw him start in the other direction between the rails of the westbound track, and on looking back shortly after-wards she observed him walking rapidly on the track toward Harwood. When she last -saw him the train which caused his death was passing the point she had then reached. Her father was then about twelve hundred feet distant. A carpenter who was Working on a house about two hundred yards north of the railroad heard “a danger signal, real short blasts,” from the locomotive whistle of the westbound train, and when he looked toward the train a moment later it was stopping with its front end near a signal station located six hundred and twenty-seven feet-'beyond the point of -the accident.

The signal was set against the further movement of the train in that direction, indicating that the block ahead was occupied. The lifeless body of Mr. Anderson was found under -the rear ear of the1 train after its motion had been arrested. Ho information -is given us by the record as- to1 the circumstances of this unfortunate event except the undisputed evidence of the facts we have stated. The case was withdrawn from the jury at the close of the plaintiffs’ evi ⁵⁷³ denee.

The only question on appeal is whether that action was right. In using as a path one of the railroad tracks, on the defendant’s private right of way, the decedent placed himself in the position of a trespasser. It was, nevertheless, the duty of those in charge of the train to exercise due care, after becoming aware of his presence, to avoid causing him injury. But they were not required to anticipate that he would, be in such a place of danger.

In order that his dependents might recover damages from the defendant on account of his death, it was necessary for them to prove that the operators of the train knew of his presence on the track in time to have obviated the accident by proper care and effort. Their knowledge of his hazardous situation, and their opportunity and failure, with such