Lusby v. Baltimore Transit Co.

*288Collins, J.,.

delivered the. following dissenting opinion, in which Marbury, C. J., concurred.

In sustaining the demurrers in the former case we held that there was no allegation that the substance was in such a position that he should have noticed it. In. the present declaration the direct allegation is made that: “the presence of which substance was plainly visible to said bus driver during the said fourteen minute period.” In the former declaration we held: “There is nothing to show that the operator of the bus had any special duty to look in that direction.” In the declaration now before…