Stewart Taxi-Service Co. v. Getz

Pearce, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an action brought by Rosa Getz, an infant, by her father and next friend against the Stewart Taxi-Service Company, a body corporate, and the United Railways and Electric Company, a body corporate, to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by her in consequence of the negligence of the servants of these two corporations, resulting in a collision between a cab in which the plaintiff was driving and a car of the United Railways and Electric Company, at the intei’section of Caroline and Goixgh streets, in the City of Baltimore. ¹⁷³ The jury was instructed to render a verdict for the United Railways and Electric Company, whereupon a non-pros was entered as against that defendant, and the trial proceeded against the other defendant, the jury rendering a verdict for the plaintiff for $250, and' from the judgment thereon this appeal was taken. At the close of the plaintiff’s case the defendant offered three prayers which were rejected, and the only exception is to this ruling of the Court. The first of these prayers asked that the jury be instructed that there was no evidence legally sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to recover and therefore their verdict must be for the defendant.

The second asked an instruction that there was no evidence legally sufficient to show that the taxicab mentioned belonged to, or was owned or operated by the defendant', the Stewart Taxi-Service Company, or by its agents, servants or employees, and their verdict must therefore be for the defendant. The third asked an instruction that there was no evidence legally sufficient to show that the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the negligence of the Stewart Taxi-Service Company, its agents, servants or employees, and their verdict must therefore be for the defendant. It is obvious that if there was no legally sufficient evidence that the taxicab mentioned was owned by the defendant, or was operated by its agents, servants or employees, there coxxld be no recovery by the plaintiff in any event, and we shall therefore first consider the defendant’s second prayer. The first witness was the plaintiff, a girl eighteen years of age, who was going to a hospital for treatment, for a severe scald suffered the week previous.

She testified “we called the taxicab and he came'to the hoxise. * * * Papa carried me out and pxxt me in the taxicab and it was going right from the hoxxse towards Caroline and Goxxgh streets when the car struck the taxicab and I fell oxxt of Papa’s arms.” This was the only reference she made to the taxicab. ¹⁷⁴ The next witness was Dr. Chideckel, Dispensary physician at the Hebrew Hospital to which the plaintiff was going at the time of the accident, and where she was treated by the interne. Dr. Chideckel did not see her until after she had left the hospital, and returned to her home. He was her regular physician before and after this accident, and his testimony related exclusively to the condition of her health after as compared with her health before the accident. He was not asked anything about the taxicab, and presumably never saw it as he did not see the plaintiff while at the hospital.

But however this may be he did not mention any taxicab. The next witness was H. Mangelstein who saw the collision. He said he saw “the car strike the taxicab on the back wheel, and both of them stopped, and he went and looked inside the taxicab and saw the plaintiff and her father and immediately went away into his house and that was all he saw. He made no other mention of the taxicab and none of the driver.

Harris Getz, plaintiff’s father, was the next and the last witness. He said: “My daughter-in-law telephoned up to the Taxicab Company and he come down in a little while and I took her in the taxicab, and as soon as we passed from Spring-street into Gough the car comes in and butts into the taxicab and she fell out of my arms. I had her .in my arms and she fell on the floor and I fell on top of her, and mashed my head, and I did not know what had happened. * * * The . taxicab was going- pretty fast. I asked him not to take any time.

I only heard the car when it struck the taxicab, and she fell out of my arms. That was all I saw because I was excited and did not go outside.” The rest of his testimony related exclusively to his daughter’s condition, and he made