Holt v. Kolker

Decision Date18 February 1948
Docket Number61.
Citation57 A.2d 287,189 Md. 636
PartiesHOLT v. KOLKER et al.
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas of Baltimore City; John T. Tucker Judge.

Action by Grace Holt against Benjamin Kolker, trading as Maryland Lumber Company, wherein Clarence Wiesner was joined as a third-pary defendant. From the judgment in favor of both original defendant and third-party defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Judgment as to both defendants affirmed.

William Taft Feldman, of Baltimore (David J. Markoff of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

Foster H. Fanseen, of Baltimore, for Benjamin Kolker.

Rosezel C. Thomsen, of Baltimore (Clater W. Smith and Clark, Thomsen & Smith, all of Baltimore, on the brief), for Clarence Wiesner.

Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, HENDERSON and MARKELL, JJ.

DELAPLAINE Judge.

This suit for damages was instituted by Grace M. Holt, who resided with her husband, Albert F. Holt, on the second floor of a house on Denver Street in South Baltimore. She alleged that in June, 1945, the owner of the house, Benjamin Kolker, who leased the premises to her husband, made alterations to the second-floor porch; that on July 11, 1945, the porch, as a result of its unsafe condition, precipitated her to the ground, whereby she was seriously injured; and that the collapse was caused by the lessor's negligence in making the alterations and allowing the porch to remain in an unsafe condition.

The house is a two-story brick building, but plaintiff claimed that the first floor was not fit to live in. The porch which collapsed is a wooden balcony outside the kitchen door extending to the left along the wall of an adjoining house. On the extension the tenants usually stored miscellaneous articles, and sometimes the dog stayed there at night. As there was no toilet in the house, and the one in the yard was not usable, the landlord promised to put one on the porch to the left of the kitchen door. He employed Clarence Wiesner, a plumber, to do the work. Wiesner and another man, presumably his helper named McAllister, made two holes in the porch to run the pipes through. They put up a large pipe above the porch, and laid a sewer pipe in a ditch under the porch. They completed this work before the end of June. On July 11, 1945, plaintiff came out on the porch to get her mop, which was hanging on the wall to the right of the door, i. e., to the left going out. She had walked only about three steps when the porch floor collapsed and she fell through it to the ground. She sustained multiple fractures of the ankle bones, and because of her injuries she was confined in the University Hospital until August 30, 1945. For about one year afterwards she was unable to walk without the aid of crutches on account of deformities resulting from the fractures.

Before the case came to trial Kolker alleged, in a claim making Wiesner a third-party defendant under the Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, Code Supp.1943, art. 50, secs. 21-30, that Wiesner had done plumbing work on the premises as an independent contractor prior to the accident, and that he may be liable as a joint tortfeasor for the reason that he negligently removed a portion of the porch in the course of his work. At the close of plaintiff's case the trial judge directed the jury to render a verdict in favor of both original defendant and third-party defendant. From the judgment entered on that verdict plaintiff brought this appeal.

In the Court below plaintiff adduced the following evidence: (1) That the landlord agreed to install the toilet on the second-floor porch; (2) that the toilet could not be installed unless holes were made in the porch; (3) that notwithstanding that the porch was old and rickety, the landlord failed to employ a carpenter or to put any underpinning under the porch...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Wyeth, Inc. v. Weeks, 1101397.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • August 15, 2014
    ...owes a duty to give it with care. ’ Weisman v. Connors, 312 Md. 428, 540 A.2d [783] at 790 [ (1988) ] (quoting Holt v. Kolker, 189 Md. 636, [640,] 57 A.2d 287, 288 (1948) ). There is no such relationship between the parties to this case, as Brandy Foster was injured by a product that Wyeth ......
  • Walpert v. Katz
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • November 21, 2000
    ...230 Md. 548, 552-53, 187 A.2d 880, 882-83 (1963); Piper v. Jenkins, 207 Md. 308, 313, 113 A.2d 919, 921 (1955); Holt v. Kolker, 189 Md. 636, 639, 57 A.2d 287, 288 (1948). This Court extensively considered the duty element of negligence in Jacques. See id. at 532-37, 515 A.2d at 759-61. In t......
  • Martens Chevrolet, Inc. v. Seney
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • January 5, 1982
    ...Our later cases have adhered to this principle. See Appel v. Hupfield, 198 Md. 374, 379, 84 A.2d 94, 96 (1951); Holt v. Kolker, 189 Md. 636, 639, 57 A.2d 287, 288 (1948). Realizing the inequities stemming from the strictures imposed for recovery in a deceit action, and being cognizant of th......
  • Weisman v. Connors
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 1987
    ...897. Virginia Dare involved personal injuries, and when we next considered the tort of negligent misrepresentation in Holt v. Kolker, 189 Md. 636, 57 A.2d 287 (1948), we limited this cause of action to cases involving personal injuries. 189 Md. at 639, 57 A.2d 287. Holt is also notable for ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT