South Baltimore Car Works v. Schaefer
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from Baltimore City Court (Sharp, J.), where there was a verdict for plaintiff for $7,500, which was afterwards reduced with his consent to $5,000. The sudden breaking or giving away of a piece of machinery is not sufficient as between master and servant to authorize the submission of the case to the jury. We cite a number of illustrative cases.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Baltimore City Court (Sharp, J.), where there was a verdict for plaintiff for $7,500, which was afterwards reduced with his consent to $5,000. The sudden breaking or giving away of a piece of machinery is not sufficient as between master and servant to authorize the submission of the case to the jury. We cite a number of illustrative cases. Where a servant was injured by the breaking of a chain used in raising a wrecked and derailed car, it was said: “The mere fact of the breaking of the chain is not sufficient to authorize the inference or presumption that the master had failed…
1Opinion of the CourtFowler, J.
This is an action to recover damages sustained by the plaintiff while in the employment of the defendant, the South Baltimore Car Works.
The verdict of the jury was in favor of the plaintiff and this is the defendant’s appeal.
At the close of the whole case the plaintiff and defendant each offered several prayers. There was also an exception taken to the admission of certain testimony; but the conclusion we have reached renders it unnecessary to do more than discuss the question presented by the ruling upon the de fendant’s first and second prayers, by which it was sought to take the case from…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Benedick v. PottsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1898
- Titus v. Bradford etc. R., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, McKean County1890
- Graham v. BadgerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
- Stringham v. . HiltonNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Griffin v. Boston & Albany RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Chesapeake Iron Works v. Hochschield, Kohn & Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1913
- State v. Emerson & Morgan Coal Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1926
- Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Fort Worth v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1936
- Maryland, Delaware & Virginia Railway Co. v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1909
- Stewart & Co. v. HarmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1908
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.