Cooke v. Baltimore Traction Co.
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Baltimore City Court. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court. At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s evidence, the trial Court (Wright, J.), instructed the jury that “ though they should find the defendant guilty of negligence, yet the uncontradicted evidence shows that the accident happened by reason' of the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, and their verdict must therefore be for the defendant.”
1Opinion of the CourtMcSherry, J.
This is another of the numerous negligence cases which have come before us from Baltimore City since the rapid transit system was introduced there. It is a case growing out of the alleged carelessness of the employees of a street railway company, whereby the vehicle of the plaintiff, which was rightfully on a public street of Baltimore, was run into and demolished by a cable car belonging to and operated by the defendant company. The legal principles applicable to and governing such a case have been frequently and explicitly announced by this tribunal; but repeated efforts to invoke and rely…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Detroit & Milwaukee Railroad v. Van SteinburgMichigan Supreme Court · 1868
- Cumberland Valley Railroad v. MaugansCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1883
- Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. State ex rel. MillerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1868
- Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. FitzpatrickCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1872
- Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. State ex rel. DoughertyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1872
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by64 opinions
- Deputy v. KimmellWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1914
- Merrifield v. C. Hoffberger Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1925
- McNab v. United Railways, Etc., Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1902
- Taxicab Co. of Balto. v. EmanuelCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1915
- Baltimore Traction Co. v. HelmsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1897
59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.