Court Opinion

ID: 9702127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:56:13.345827+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:33.871490
License: Public Domain

*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 the Court it is alleged: “while said bus was stopped and the attention of the said chauffeur not primarily focused on watching traffic, that said chauffeur in the exercise of the care he owed Plaintiffs should have observed the presence of said foreign substance * * In the former declaration we held: “there is nothing to show that the actual substance described looked dangerous.” Here it is said: “that said substance appeared to be and was dangerous * * * resembling spit or grease in the shape of an ellipse some four inches by two inches in size * * * appeared to be * * * dangerous to passengers on said bus.” I think under the cases of Hanway v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 126 Md. 535, 542, 95 A. 160; Topp v. United Rys. & Electric Co., 99 Md. 630, 639, 59 A. 52; and Moore v. American Stores Co., 169 Md. 541, 182 A. 436, the declaration requires an answer and that the demurrers should have been overruled.
Chief Judge Marbury joins in this dissent.