State Ex Rel. Morrow v. Washington, Baltimore & Annapolis Railway Co.

Adkins, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is another railway crossing accident in the open country. The suit was brought by Helen A. Morrow, the surviving widow of William J. Morrow, who was killed in attempting to cross the tracks of the Washington, Baltimore and Annapolis Bailway Company, at Earleigh Heights Station, in Anne Arundel County. It was a southbound train of two cars running between forty and fifty miles an hour.

The deceased was approaching the crossing from the east in a truck, at a rate of speed variously estimated at from five to twelve miles an hour, and did not stop until the front wheels of the truck were about eighteen inches over the east rail. The train was then only about twenty-two and a half yards from the crossing. Two witnesses for the plaintiff who' were on the train testified as to seeing the truck before the accident. About one hundred and ten or one hundred and twenty-five yards from the crossing there is a curve in the track.

There were no obstructions except telegraph poles north of the crossing between, it and the curve. One of the witnesses, Porter, was asked: “From that point” (fifteen feet east of the crossing), “was there anything between. where the automobile was and the train, when you on the train first saw the automobile (the witness had previously testified this was ninety yards) to have obstructed the vision from the automobile of the approaching train ? A. That is, from the automobile ? I am standing where the automobile is supposed to be ?

Q. Yes ? A. Well there ai-e three or four telegraph poles there that almost get in line and make almost a solid front there. Q. But this train has two cars on it ? A. Yes, sir.

Q. "Do you know how long the car is ? A. Not positively. I was looking them ²⁸⁸ over and I judge them to be almost fifty feet.

Q. Then, two cars would be about one hundred feet? A. Yes, sir. Q. And there is a one hundred foot train coming around there and that one hundred foot train would be hidden behind four or five telegraph poles, and is that your testimony ?” The second exception was to requiring the witness to answer that question. It was on cross-examination, and was a perfectly proper question.

There was no error in this ruling. The witness’ answer was that he didn’t think it would be hidden; that the poles were there and lined in such a manner that they would obstruct the view somewhat, but not entirely hide the train, of course. This witness placed the truck ten feet or less from the track when he first saw it. The other witness, Eeder, said he first saw the truck when the train was “about less than one hundred feet from the crossing”; that the machine was about fifteen feet from the tracks; that he didn’t see the machine until they were almost on it, and that it may have been less than fifteen feet from the track.

Both witnesses testified that the track did not stop until the front wheels were about eighteen inches over the east rail and that then the train was so close that the collision was inevitable. There were only two bills of exception in addition to the one already mentioned. The first was to overruling a question of defendant on cross-examination. The question does not appear from the record to have been answered, so there