United Railways & Electric Co. v. Rosik

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The plaintiff recovered a judgment in the Baltimore City Court, for personal injuries sustained, while a passenger, on one of the defendant’s cars, in Baltimore City. At the trial of the case, the defendant reserved three exceptions. Two of these relate to the rulings of the Court upon the admissibility of evidence, and were waived by the appellant in its brief and in the argument in this Court.

The third exception presents the ruling of the Court upon the prayers and is the one question for discussion upon this appeal. The plaintiff offered three prayers, all of which were granted. The defendant’s first, second and sixth were refused, but its third, fourth and fifth prayers were granted as offered. The defendant’s first prayer was granted with certain modifications.

The action of the Court in granting the plaintiff’s prayers and in rejecting the defendant’s prayers, as stated, forms the basis of the third exception and becomes the only matter before us for consideration. The plaintiff, was a passenger on one of the defendant’s cars on August 22nd, 1905, and was injured while attempting to leave or alight from the car near Lakewood avenue in Baltimore City. He testified that he boarded the defendant’s car at Wolfe and Aliceanna streets, paid his fare, and became a passenger therein, that when the car reached Cannon street, ¹⁴³ he notified the conductor to stop at Luzerne street, the car slacked up but did not stop; he asked the conductor why he did not stop the car, the conductor replied, never mind, he then asked him to stop at Lakewood avenue, and the car crossed the steam railroad tracks at Lakewood avenue and stopped. He then got up, caught hold of the bench with his hand, and caught, hold of the handle, put one foot down upon the board, and as he was about to pull the other leg after, the conductor pulled the bell twice, he was thrown off and the car went on.

That he was hurt on the knee, leg and thigh, in the chest and shoulders, and is still unable to lift anything with the left hand, that he was taken home and sent for a doctor. He was unable to get out bf his bed for over two months and suffered great pain from the injury. The testimony'of the plaintiff, as to the cause of the accident was substantially corroborated, by the witness Boloviski who was on the car at the time and saw the accident. Evidence was offered by the defendant tending to prove that the accident was caused by the carelessness of the plaintiff in attempting to leave the car while in motion, in the middle of a block, at Binney street near Lakewood avenue; that he walked down to the foot board, held on the handle and jumped off the car, while in rapid motion; that he was warned not to do so.

The rule of law bearing upon negligence cases, similar to the one now before us, has been so firmly fixed by the decisions of this Court, that it becomes a mere matter of the application of the facts of the case, than to a discussion of the reasons upon which the rule rests. The question of negligence both on the part of the plaintiff and defendant, was fairly and correctly presented to the jury, in this case by the plaintiff’s and defendant’s granted prayers upon the facts set out in the record. The plaintiff’s first prayer was properly granted. It submitted the correct rule, as to the degree of care and skill the defendant was bound to exercise for the plaintiff’s safety, as a passenger, on its cars.

It has-been approved by a number of cases, in this Court. United Railways Co. v. Beidelman, 95 Md. 483 . ¹⁴⁴ The plaintiff’s second and third prayers were also properly granted, and we do not