Taxicab Co. of Balto. v. Emanuel

93 A. 807, 125 Md. 246, 1915 Md. LEXIS 210
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedFebruary 17, 1915
StatusPublished
Cited by51 cases

This text of 93 A. 807 (Taxicab Co. of Balto. v. Emanuel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Taxicab Co. of Balto. v. Emanuel, 93 A. 807, 125 Md. 246, 1915 Md. LEXIS 210 (Md. 1915).

Opinion

Pattison, J.,

delivered the opinian of the Court.

In this case an infant, Lester H. Emanuel, recovered a judgment against the defendant, The Taxicab Company of Baltimore City, in the Court below, for personal injuries suffered by him, alleged to have been sustained by the carelessness and negligence of the defendant’s agent in operating an automobile belonging to the defendant, on the 12th day of September, 1913, upon Greenmount avenue, or York road, near Windermere avenue, or Thirty-fourth street, in the City of Baltimore.

There are in the record three bills of exceptions, two to the rulings of the Court upon the admission of testimony, these however, are waived, and one to the ruling of the Court upon the prayers. In addition to this exception, we are asked to review ’the ruling of the Court in refusing to grant the defendant’s application for a removal of the case.

Among the prayers offered by the defendant were three that asked for a verdict for the defendant; the first and third because of a want of legally sufficient evidence entitling the plaintiff to recover, and the second because of the alleged negligence of the plaintiff directly contributing to the accident complained of. We will first consider the ruling of the *249 Court in refusing to grant these prayers, and to do so it will he necessary for us to state fully the testimony in the case.

The street upon which the accident happened is named in the declaration as Greenmount avenue, although it is generally spoken of in the testimony as York road. It runs north and south and upon it are the tracks of the City Passenger Railway Company. The width of said street is thirty-nine feet and seven inches between the curbs; the distance between the curb on each side of the street and the tracks of the railway company is twelve feet and two inches, with a distance of four feet and five inches between the tracks. Windermere avenue, thirty-two feet in width between its curbs, intersects York road from the east, but does not cross it. Calvin avenue intersects York road from the west, the southern line of which is about one hundred and ten feet north of Windemere avenue. About ten feet north of what would be the north line of Windermere avenue, if it were extended beyond York road, is an alley, ten feet in width, intersecting York road from the west, but not extending beyond it. Ethelwood lane, the next street above Calvin avenue, is three hundred and seventy-six feet north of Windermere avenue. The streets south of Windermere avenue are Henderson and Thirty-third streets, the former about one hundred and fifty feet and the latter about three hundred and ninety feet from said avenue.

The plaintiff, an infant sixteen years of age at the time of the accident, residing with his father on the north side of Calvin avenue, was injured while attempting to cross in a northwestern direction from the east side of York road, at a point near the middle of Windermere avenue, to the west side of said road at a point where it is interested by the aforesaid alley.

The automobile of the defendant, at such time, was coining south on the west side of York road—its lights were not burning, nor were the street lamps lighted at the time.

The plaintiff testified that he, on the evening of the accident *250 took a street car at Holliday and Fayette streets for his home on Calvin avenue; that when the car reached Twenty-fifth street he noticed, by the clock in front of the drug store, that it was quarter of seven, and that he had frequently observed that it took five minutes for the car to go from this point to Calvin avenue, and thus he fixed the time of his reaching Windermere avenue at ten minutes of seven, and he says it was then cloudy and getting dark; that he alighted from the front step of the car at a point about the middle of Winder-mere avenue and remained at this point until the car reached a point, where he saw it, a block away, between Calvin avenue and Ethelwood lane; that he looked twice up Windermere avenue and twice up and down York road before starting to cross the last-named street, and saw nothing coming, and “before he got across to the other curb the automobile struck him;” that when struck he was in the act of stepping from the south-bound track; that he did not see the automobile at all before it struck him; that Mr. Hull, the driver of the automobile, came back and put him in the automobile and took him to the Hebrew Hospital. Hpon cross-examination he testified that while crossing the street he again looked up York road, but saw no automobile or other vehicle, except the street car, and that had there been any he would have seen it, as there was nothing to obstruct his view; that he had no difficulty in seeing the street car between Calvin avenue and Ethelwood lane.

William D. Burnite, a witness for the plaintiff, testified that he lived on the south side of Windermere avenue seventy-five or eighty feet east of York road; that he saw the boy start across the street, facing towards the alley, “and the automobile come down and hit him;” that it was in the evening about seven o’clock and was cloudy and getting dark, he at the time was seated on his porch; that the boy started across the street and was nearly over, just crossing the southbound track, when the automobile struck him; that when he started across the street, the car was out of sight; that he. *251 did not Tear any gong rung or Tom blown preceding tTe accident; that “Te could not say Tow fast tTe automobile was going, but tTey went about two hundred feet after the fellow put the brakes on; that Te could tell when they put the brakes on by the way the automobile started to screech; that Te heard this screeching about the same time the automobile struck the boy; that the accident happened about a minute or a little over, after the boy got off the car; that Te first saw the automobile when it Tit the boy, or rather about two seconds before it Tit Tim, right at the time it Tit Tim; that he did not see the automobile approaching and simply saw the contact, the accident, it was going pretty fast, Te could not say how fact.”

Robert Woods, produced by the plaintiff, testified that at the time of the accident he was standing on the York road in front of Mr. Lacey’s feed store, near the north corner of Henderson street; that Te saw the plaintiff get off of the car and after the car Tad passed some distance up the street, saw Tim start across the street “kind of on a bias, with his face towards the alley;” that it was cloudy and getting dark; “that at the time the boy started to cross the street he did not see any street cars or carriages or automobiles on York road; that the boy was on the south-bound track going across when the automobile struck Tim; that when he first saw the automobile it was up by Galvin avenue and the boy was, he guessed, about middle way of the street; that the automobile was coming real fact;

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Brown v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 2023
Warchall v. Murphy
327 A.2d 796 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1974)
Reid v. Pegg
260 A.2d 38 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1969)
Easter v. Dundalk Holding Co.
195 A.2d 682 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1963)
Elliott v. Larrimore
101 A.2d 817 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1963)
Victor Lynn Lines, Inc. v. State
87 A.2d 165 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1952)
Heffner v. Admiral Taxi Service, Inc.
77 A.2d 127 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1950)
Eisenhower v. Baltimore Transit Co.
59 A.2d 313 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1948)
Beck v. Baltimore Transit Co.
58 A.2d 909 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1948)
Sezzin v. Stark
49 A.2d 742 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1946)
National Hauling Contractors Co. v. Baltimore Transit Co.
44 A.2d 450 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1945)
Crunkilton v. Hook
42 A.2d 517 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1945)
Baltimore Transit Co. v. State Ex Rel. Schriefer
40 A.2d 678 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1945)
Cogswell v. Frazier
39 A.2d 815 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1944)
Krause v. B. O.R.R. Co.
39 A.2d 795 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1944)
Krause v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
183 Md. 664 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1944)
Yellow Cab Co. v. Henderson
39 A.2d 546 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1944)
State Ex Rel. State Accident Commission v. Carroll-Howard Supply Co.
37 A.2d 330 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1944)
Jendrzejewski v. Baker
31 A.2d 611 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1943)
Davidson Transfer & Storage Co. v. State
22 A.2d 582 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1941)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
93 A. 807, 125 Md. 246, 1915 Md. LEXIS 210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taxicab-co-of-balto-v-emanuel-md-1915.