Consolidated Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. Ball
Decision Date | 10 November 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 45,45 |
Citation | 283 A.2d 154,263 Md. 328 |
Parties | CONSOLIDATED MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. v. Harlin BALL and Bonnie Ball. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
William M. Nickerson, Baltimore, for appellant.
Francis D. Murnaghan, Jr., Baltimore (A. Harold DuBois, A. Freeborn Brown and Lawrence S. Lanahan, Jr., Bel Air, on the brief), for appellees.
Argued before HAMMOND, C. J., and BARNES, McWILLIAMS, FINAN, SINGLEY, SMITH and DIGGES, JJ.
In November 1966 Harlin Ball fell into a hole and because he was hurt he and his wife sued the appellant (Mechanical). The case was tried in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County before Haile, J., and a jury early in November 1970. The jury gave Ball $100,000; they gave Ball and his wife $20,000. Motions for judgment n. o. v. and for a new trial were denied. From the ensuing judgments Mechanical has appealed, assigning as error Judge Haile's unwillingness to direct a verdict in its favor. The error was threefold, it says. Tich (about whom more later) should not have been allowed to give evidence as an expert; Ball should have been held, as a matter of law, to have been contributorily negligent or else to have assumed the risk of injury; Ball proved too much and too little, calling for the application of the 'Langville rule.' Langville v. Glen Burnie Coach Lines, Inc., 233 Md. 181, 195 A.2d 717 (1963). Since we see no error we shall affirm the judgments.
Mechanical had contracted with the United States (Government) for the replacement of underground steam lines at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds. We shall be concerned only with the line running from Manhole No. 6 to the southwest corner of Building No. 338, a distance of about 120 feet, 80 feet of which was paved to accommodate the movement of tanks and other heavy vehicular traffic. To do its job Mechanical had to dig a trench about six feet deep. It was required by the contract to place 'guard rails, barricades and red lights or torches' around any excavation wherever it was 'exposed to walkways, sidewalks, driveways or thoroughfares' in order to keep pedestrians and vehicles from blundering into it.
The Government, in 1965, had employed Ball as an experimental mobile equipment mechanic. On 4 November 1966 he was assigned to the night shift, 4:00 p. m. to 12:30 a. m. He and another mechanic were engaged in replacing the front differential of an Army truck-a matter of some urgency, it seems. Around 11:00 p. m. Ball left the automotive shop, Building No. 338, to dump the dirty oil that had been drained from the discarded differential and to obtain from the oil shed fresh oil for the new differential. After dumping the dirty oil he set out for the oil shed. He could have gone back through the building and out again through a side door but he chose the more direct route which was a graveled path running across an unpaved grass plot and along the outside of the front wall of the automotive shop about a foot or two from the wall. This was the route customarily used by all of the mechanics whenever a trip to the oil shed became necessary after first dumping dirty oil.
On 4 November Mechanical's job was nearly finished. The pipes had been installed, the trench (most of it) had been backfilled, the paving had been replaced and had been allowed to harden, the barricades and the 'blinkers' had been removed. The last 10 or 12 feet of the trench, where it ran through the grass plot, had not been backfilled. It seems that completion had been scheduled for Monday, 7 November, and in fact it was done on Monday. There were no barricades, guard rails, ropes, lights or torches near the open trench. The area was poorly lighted at the time; one witness said it was 'completely dark'; another said it was 'black as pitch.'
In common with other employees Ball had been aware of Mechanical's activities during the weeks preceding 4 November. When he reported for work on 2, 3 and 4 November be drove his car over the paving where the trench had been. As he put it, 'It all looked finished, everything was done and * * * (he) thought the job was completed.' He did not know that the end of the trench had not been backfilled.
On his way to the oil shed he fell into the open trench. After he got his bearings he clambered out but whether he then went to the oil shed or returned to the shop is unclear. There is testimony both ways, but whether it is one way or the other matters little. The next morning he visited the post hospital where he was treated for injuries to his left hand and to his back. In time it developed that his injuries were more serious than at first they seemed.
At trial Ball called Gerald L. Tich to testify in his behalf. Excerpts from his testimony follow:
'
* * *.'
'(The Court) I need a further definition of what a vocational evaluation involves.
'(The Witness) It involves a total assessment of an individual taking into consideration the medical aspect, the vocational aspect, the psychological aspect, the sociological aspect, the sum total of one's existence, if possible, to assess all of the factors involved and putting them into some meaningful light.'
'(The Court) This is a public service then, to industry and employees?
'(The Witness) Perhaps so, if we can remove him from the rolls of dependency, he is certainly a tax paying citizen.
'(The Court) My decision is to allow him to testify to his vocational evaluation.
'(Mr. Nickerson) May I note an exception, for the record?
'(The Court) Yes.
'
Mechanical attacks the testimony of Tich because, it says, his opinion was based in part on medical reports not in evidence, thereby making it inadmissible despite the fact that it was based...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ellsworth v. Sherne Lingerie, Inc.
... ... Contractors v. Ball, 263 Md. 328, 283 A.2d 154 (1971); Airlift, Ltd. v. Bd. of Co ... ...
-
I. W. Berman Properties v. Porter Bros., Inc.
...of expert testimony, a critical test is 'whether the expert's opinion will aid the trier of fact.' Consolidated Mech. Contrs., Inc. v. Ball, 263 Md. 328, 338, 283 A.2d 154, 159 (1971); Continental Ins. Co. v. Kouwenhoven, supra; Rotwein v. Bogart, supra; see also Franceschina v. Hope, 267 M......
-
State v. Allewalt
...determine, in its discretion, whether the opinion and reasons for it will aid the trier of fact. Consolidated Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. Ball, 263 Md. 328, 338, 283 A.2d 154, 159 (1971). Here the trial judge concluded that Dr. Spodak's diagnosis of PTSD, coupled with his opinion on the......
-
Keene Corp., Inc. v. Hall
...examination of a patient but rather may be "facts contained in reports or examinations by third parties." Consol. Mech. Contractors v. Ball, 263 Md. 328, 335, 283 A.2d 154 (1971) (emphasis in original); State Roads Comm. v. Creswell, 235 Md. 220, 227, 201 A.2d 328 (1964). An expert may ther......