The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1950-12-28
Court Explains Why
Oakland Is Relieved
Of Liability Damage

The full opinion in the case against
the town of Oakland in an attempt to
make it third party defendant in
damage suits totaling $4,000, where
| in Oakland was relieved of any re-
/ sponsibility, was received last Friday
morning by Lewis R. Jones, city at
torney.
Arguments on a demurrer filed by
the town were heard December 16 in
| Hagerstown, and in the opinion
handed down last Wednesday Chief
Judge Joseph Mish, who presided, the
demurrer was sustained and the case
! dismissed as far as the town of Oak
! land was concerned.
| Part of Judge Msh's statement in
the case is given below:
Il think the demulrers should be
| sustained and the Mayor and City
Council of Oakland should be dis
/ missed from the proceedings.
"There is no dispute between the
! parties as to the law applicable to
municipal corporations in actions of
tort in this State but the dispute
arises upon the question of the appli
cation of the law to the facts in this
! case.
"Where the city or county is act
J ing in a governmental capacity, it Is
not liable for damages. Examples of
| such cases are claim for damages
; suffered as a result of a revocation
of permit authorizing the carrying
on of the public business of removing
refuse, from failure to enforce an ord
nance forbidding the discharge of
| firearms within the city, from failure
! to warn the public of the dangerous
| character of a stream by reason of
which a boy was drowned, from fail
ure to prevent a child from drowning
in a public swimming pool, or from
injuries incurred by falling i'll the
county court house.
"On the other hand where the mat
| ter involved is proprietary obliga
/ ton of the governing authority such
as the obligation to keep streets and
public ways reasonably safe for
travel in the ordinary manner the
municipality may be held liable in a
| proper case. Most of the cases where
! liability was incurred involve the ia
miliar cases of actual defects in the
! streets or highways themselves. But
| liability has also been established in
other cases where the act complained
! of constituted nuisance which rea
sonably could have been abated by the
! governmental authorities. Examples
of such cases are liability for per-
hitting ice to accumulate and remain
on the public streets, for permitting
sled riding on the street, permitting
d.. cattle to run at large, and permitting
, bicycles to race upon the public
streets.
Even if in passing the ordinance
] regulating the speed of trains and in
| failing to enforce it the town of Oak
land was acting in proprietary man
, ner, still do not think that there
would be liability on this account. 1t
seems to me that there must be a
! distinction preserved between negli-
, gence, an omission of duty, and a
nuisance or active wrong.
"But assuming without deciding
that the town was negligent in failing
| to enforce the ordinance, | do not
think that this negligence can be con-
sidered the proXimate cause of the
accident complained of. By the pro-
visions of Section 439 of Article II of
| the Code of Public Local Laws, the
railroad was required to provide
Waterman at the railroad crossing
and it may be fairly assumed that
this was adequate to protect the pub
| lie in the ordinary case. Even if the
ordinance had been enforced | fail to
| see how that would necessarily pre-
/ vent an engineer upon occasion from
exceeding the limit of speed contained
in the ordinance.
"Unless the alleged negligence of
| this defendant was the proximate
| cause of the injury of which the
| plaintiffs complain there can be no
| recovery. Where the act or omission
| was only remote cause this defend
! ant is not liable. | do not think that it
can be fairly said that the negligence,
F., if any, of the municipal corporation
was concurrent with that of the other
| defendants.
ut follows that the demurrers will
be sustained which means that the
Mayor and City Council of Oakland
are dismissed as party defendant in
| these actions"
/ The order of court was filed Decem-
! Der ~ IN HagerstoWn.
The suits by Ruth Wright and Les
i lie NJ. Wright VS.. the Baltimore and
Ohio railroad company and others,
were brought as result of an accident
which occurred on Second street in
! the town of Oakland, October %,
1913, as a result of which the plain
tiff, Ruth Wright received serious
! permanent injuries, including the loss
of her left leg. She was struck while
a pedestrian on that street by motor
vehicle being driven by Howard Ta,-
! ker after it had colidcd with a train.
Ralph Pritts, trading as Ralph
Pritts garage was made an original
, defendant based upon an allegation Of