Benedick v. Potts

Citations

• 88 Md. 52
• 41 L.R.A. 478
• 40 A. 1067
• 1898 Md. LEXIS 182

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Instifficiwit evidence — Accident on SwitchBack Railway — Res ipsa loquitur.</p> <p>Plaintiff was riding in an open car on defendant’s circular, inclined, switch-back railway, at a pleasure resort, and fell from the car while it was passing through a tunnel. The car was not derailed and other persons in it were not injured, and there was no defect in the construction of the tunnel or of the car. No evidence was offered to show how or why plaintiff fell on the track, where he was afterwards found, unconscious. In an action to recover damages, Held, that there was no legally sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant to carry the case to the jury.</p> <p>The mere fact that a person was injured, does not justify an inference that it was caused by negligence. The maxim res ipsa loquitur means that when the act that caused the injury is shown, the inference is in some cases authorized that it was a negligent act; but when the cause of the injury is unknown, the maxim does not permit an inference from the mere fact of injury, that it was caused by another’s negligence.</p>