The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1950-06-22
OAKLAND is MADE
DEFENDANT IN HUGE
SUITSFOR DAMAGES
b. and o. Declares Mayor and
Council Is Wholly or Partly Re
SpOnSlble

Citizens of Oakland through the
Mayor and Town Council were in
directly brought into two damage
suits for 100000, now pending in the
courts, as the result of move by the
Baltimore and Ohio railroad company,
as attorneys prepared to get the trial
under way Friday in Hagerstown.
The railroad company is one Of the
defendants in the suits brought by
Mrs. Ruth Wright and her husband,
Leslie NJ. Wright, of Altamont, by at
tolneys Neil c. Fraley and Walter w.
Dawson, as the result of an accident
at the Second street crossing in Oak
land, which necessitatcd the amputa-
ton Of one of Mrs. Wrights legs.
Other defendants are Howard Tasker
and Ralph PrittS, the latter trading as
Ralph Pritts garage.
The suit was moved from Garrett
county and set for trial in Hagcrs-
town last Friday, and just as prepar-
ations were made to get the trial
under way the railroads attorneys
moved for leave to send a summons
and claim on the Mayor and Town
Council of Oakland as "third party
defendant in the case on the ground
that the Mayor and Town Council sis
wholly on partly responsible for in
juries complained Of in the declara-
ton Of said case"
The summons was served on the
Mayor and Town Council on Monday.
The railroad company, through its
attorneys, W. r. Offutt and f. Stuart
Bushong, declared that the Mayor and
Town Council lis empowered by char
ter to enact ordinances for the pro-
lection Of its persons from violence,
danger and destruction, has duty to
protect its persons from violence,
danger and destruction
The railroad charged that on or
about June /, 1919, the Mayor and
Town Council passed or ATTEMPTED to
pass an ordinance limiting the speed
of trains through Oakland to 20 miles
per hour, that they gave no notice to
the b. and Q. and never had given any
notice as to the existence of the ordi-
nance.
The railroad admitted that it had
been the custom to Operate not eX-
ceeding 80 miles per hour and has
violated the aforesaid ordinance, that
the town has never notified the rail
road or brought proceedings for vio-
lation.
The company contends it was the
duty of the Town Council to pass and
enforce the ordinance, and that be-
cause of the violation of the ordinance
the town was held jointly liable for
failure of the company "to perform
its duty aforesaid"
Records show that an ordinance was
passed August Z, 1889, re-enacting a
previous ordinance, that copy was
posted on the town bulletin board,
but that the ordinance was not pub
lished in either newspaper in Oakland.
The original ordinance limited train
speeds to 10 miles an hour, was later
amended to 80 miles an hour, and
again in 1899, limited the speed to 20.
BY reason of the petition of the
railroad company the town of Oak
land is made a Joint defendant It's
attorneys will be required to plead
its case and to prepare a defense.
Eleven attorneys already were in
volved in the case. four for the
Wrights, two for the railroad, two for
Tasker, and three for Pritts.
The trial is scheduled on the Wash
ington county docket for sometime in
November.
The suits are the outcome of an ac-
cident October %, 1913, when B. and
Q. train struck a car driven by How
ard Tasker, knocking the car against
Mrs. Wright, breaking her shoulder
and crushing one leg which was am
putated in July, 1919 Mrs Wright's
suit is for 100000 and that of Mr..
Wright, for $4,000.