Northern Central Ry. Co. v. Medairy

Citations

• 86 Md. 168
• 37 A. 796
• 1897 Md. LEXIS 104

Syllabus

<p>Negligence—Accident at Railway Crossing—Legal Sufficiency of Evidence— Watchman at Crossing.</p> <p>Plaintiff, a young woman, was injured by defendant’s train at a railway crossing in a country village. In an action to recover damages the uncontradicted evidence was to the effect that the train by which plaintiff was struck was a freight train running twenty miles an hour; that the whistle was blown a quarter of a mile below the crossing and the engine bell was afterwards rung ; that a lookout was kept on the engine and the plaintiff was not perceived until just before the accident. Another train, going in the opposite direction, passed the crossing immediately before the arrival of the one causing the injury. The latter could have been seen for nearly 400 feet from the crossing. There was no watchman there, but a signal bell was ringing. Plaintiff testified that she looked before stepping upon the track but saw nothing. Held, that there is no legally sufficient evidence of defendant’s negligence and that the case should be withdrawn from the jury.</p> <p>If a witness who can see testifies that although he looked he did not see an object which, if he had really looked he must have seen, such testimony is unworthy of consideration.</p> <p>A railway company is not bound to station flagmen at the crossings of public roads unless required so to do under Code Art. 23, sec. 194, and a failure to put a flagman even at a dangerous crossing is not per se negligence.</p> <p>When an accident occurs at a railway crossing the fact that the train was behind time or that there was a curve in the road at that point does not constitute evidence of negligence.</p>