Belvidere Bldg. Co. v. Bryan

• Court: Maryland Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PEARCE, J.
• Citation: Belvidere Bldg. Co. v. Bryan, 103 Md. 514, 64 A. 44 (Md. 1906)
• Decision Date: 15 June 1906
• Parties: BELVIDERE BLDG. CO. OF BALTIMORE v. BRYAN.

64 A. 44

103 Md. 514

BELVIDERE BLDG. CO. OF BALTIMORE v. BRYAN.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 15, 1906

Appeal from Baltimore City Court; Danl. Giraud Wright, Judge.

Action by Olin Bryan against the Belvidere Building Company of Baltimore. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before McSHERRY, C.J., and BRISCOE, PAGE, PEARCE, SCHMUCKER BOYD, JONES, and BURKE, JJ.

Roland B. Harvey and Wm. Pinkney Whyte, for appellant.

John C Tolson and Thomas G. Hayes, for appellee.

PEARCE J.

The defendant below, the Belvidere Building Company, was on December 10, 1903, engaged in conducting a public inn, known as the Belvidere Hotel, in a building in the city of Baltimore, and maintained and operated therein a passage elevator for the transportation of the guests of the hotel and those having business with them, or with the defendant, from one story of the building to another. The plaintiff, now the appellee, while rightfully upon said elevator as a passenger, was thrown or fell from it, and sustained serious, permanent injuries, for which he brought suit and recovered damages in the Baltimore city court, and from that judgment the defendant has appealed.

The declaration contained two counts, the first of which is as follows:

"(1) For that on the 10th day of December, A. D. 1903, the defendant was in possession of a building in Baltimore City and conducted in said building a public inn or hotel. That the persons in said inn or hotel were carried from the cellar to the different floors by means of a passenger elevator. That the movements of said elevator were under the control, direction, and operation of a servant of the defendant. That it was the duty of the defendant towards its persons who rightfully took passage on said elevator to use the unmost care and diligence which human foresight could use to provide for the safety of said persons who rightfully took passage in said elevator. That on the 10th day of December, A. D. 1903, the plaintiff visited said hotel to partake of an entertainment provided by the defendant for compensation for himself and others, and the plaintiff, to reach the room provided by the defendant for said entertainment to be served, took passage in said elevator from office floor to reach the second floor of said inn or hotel: That, as the plaintiff attempted to step from the elevator to the second floor, it suddenly dropped, striking him a severe blow on his left hip and crushing, contusing, and lacerating the left thigh of the plaintiff and throwing him with a severe blow on the top of the rapidly descending elevator. That, when the elevator passed the office floor of said building, it commenced rapidly to ascend with the plaintiff on its top, and, when in its rapid ascent it reached the second floor of said building, the elevator doors of which were still open, the plaintiff fell or rolled from the top of said elevator to the said second floor. That the sudden dropping and ascent of said elevator, as aforesaid, was caused by the improper and defective construction and maintenance of the machinery and its appliances, used in its propulsion and movements. That the injury to the plaintiff, hereinafter set forth, was caused by the failure of the defendant to perform the duty they owed the plaintiff to provide said elevator with proper machinery and appliances and to properly maintain the same. That by reason of said negligence of the defendants in failing to properly control and maintain said elevator the plaintiff was seriously and permanently injured. That the left hip and thigh of the plaintiff was struck and caught between the side or edge of the rapidly descending or dropping elevator and the shaft down which the elevator was falling or dropping, and crushed, contused, and lacerated. That the body of the plaintiff received a severe blow as it fell or rolled from the top of the rapidly ascending elevator through the open elevator doors to the said second floor. That the viscera of plaintiff, by reason of said injuries and the shock incident thereto, were seriously injured and permanently impaired. That the brain and nerve centers of plaintiff, because of the severe shock caused by said injuries, were seriously disturbed and permanently injured. That in sundry other ways the plaintiff was severely and permanently injured and his organs and their functions permanently injured and impaired. That the plaintiff, before and at the time of his receiving said injuries, was an attorney at law in the active practice of his profession; that his professional duties constantly require of him a vigorous exercise of his brain and mental powers. That the injuries aforesaid have permanently deprived the plaintiff of the power of continuously and vigorously exercising his brain and mental powers in the duties of his profession. That by reason of said injuries the professional business of plaintiff and it profits have been destroyed, and he has lost and been deprived of large retainers, as well as gains and profits from fees and other remuneration and compensation usually received by lawyers in active practice. That said injuries have caused the plaintiff to suffer great and excruciating mental and physical pain and suffering. That the injuries aforesaid to the plaintiff were directly and proximately caused by the said negligence of the defendants, and the plaintiff did not by his negligence contribute to said injuries; but said plaintiff used ordinary and reasonable care in traveling on and leaving said elevator, whereby the plaintiff brings this suit to recover damages for the injuries aforesaid."

The second count differed from the first only in charging: "That the sudden dropping and ascent of said elevator as aforesaid was caused by the negligence and carelessness of the servant of the defendant who was running said elevator and in charge of its operation and the running of the same. That the injury of the plaintiff hereinafter set forth was caused by the negligence and carelessness of said servant of defendant in operating and running said elevator, and a failure of the defendants to perform the duty it owed the plaintiff to provide a servant who would exercise ordinary and reasonable care in operating said elevator when carrying guests as passengers. That, by reason of said negligence of the defendant in failing to have a servant who would exercise ordinary and reasonable care in operating said elevator, the plaintiff was seriously and permanently injured." This count did not charge any failure of duty to provide a properly constructed and equipped elevator.

The only exception is to the ruling upon the prayers, of which the plaintiff offered three, all of which were granted, and the defendant offered nine, of which the first and second were rejected, and all the others were granted. The plaintiff's third prayer is in the usual form as to measure of damages, and no question is raised thereon, provided the case properly went to the jury. The plaintiff's second prayer recites the facts necessary to be found in his view to justify his recovery, and his first prayer defines the degree of care required in his transportation as the highest degree of care and diligence practicable under the circumstances." These will be set out in full by the reporter. The defendant's first prayer sought to withdraw the case from the jury on the ground that there was no legally sufficient evidence tending to show that the inries of the plaintiff were occasioned by any negligence of defendant in failing to provide the elevator with proper machinery and appliances, nor by any negligence or carelessness in failing to provide a servant who would exercise ordinary and reasonable care in operating said elevator, nor by any negligence or carelessness of the servant in operating the same. And its second prayer sought to withdraw the case upon the ground that there was no evidence legally sufficient to show that defendant has been guilty of any violation of any of the duties owed to the plaintiff as alleged in the declaration. All questions of contributing negligence were fully and fairly submitted by the defendant's granted prayers. The defendant excepted generally to the granting of all the plaintiff's prayers and to the rejection of its first and second prayers, and also excepted specially to the language of his second prayer "by reason of the negligence and carelessness on the part of the servant of defendant in operating the same," because there is no legally sufficient evidence in the case in regard thereto, and also to the language of the same prayer "said elevator by reason of the negligence and carelessness on the part of the servant of the defendant, suddenly descended," because there is no evidence legally sufficient to be submitted to the jury on the instruction. Both of which special exceptions were overruled. The defendant's rejected prayers and special exceptions require an examination of all the testimony.

The plaintiff testified that he is an officer of the order of Heptasophs, and that he had arranged with Mr. McCahan, the manager of the Belvidere Hotel, to serve for him on the evening of this occurrence, in a room upon the second floor of the hotel, a lunch for a number of visitors and guests of the order, to be paid for by him. This was paid to the hotel company by Mr. Tattersall, secretary of the order, and the amount repaid him by the plaintiff. While at lunch, he left the room, and took an elevator to the ground floor in company with Gov. Warfield, one of the guests, who was obliged to leave at an early hour. On returning to the elevator he thus details what occurred at the time of the accident. "I found the elevator nearest the door waiting, and on entering it I told the...