Dorsch v. S. S. Kresge Co.

• Decision Date: 09 March 1967
• Docket Number: No. 151,151
• Parties: Alice N. DORSCH et vir. v. S. S. KRESGE COMPANY.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 697

245 Md. 697

226 A.2d 899

Alice N. DORSCH et vir. v. S. S. KRESGE COMPANY.

No. 151.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

March 9, 1967.

William D. Hooper, Jr., Baltimore (Joseph F. Lentz, Jr., and Monfred & Lentz, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.

John H. Bolgiano, Baltimore (Smith, Somerville & Case, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

Before HAMMOND, C. J., and HORNEY, MARBURY, OPPENHEIMER and McWILLIAMS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Alice Dorsch, was injured when she slipped and fell on the sidewalk or on the street near the appellee's store at the corner of Lexington Street and Park Avenue in Baltimore. There had been a snowfall the night before, and the appellee's employees had removed the snow from the abutting sidewalk before the accident. At the conclusion of the appellants' care, in the Baltimore City Court, before a jury, Judge O'Donnell granted the appellee's motion for a directed verdict. We think he was correct.

The appellants properly concede that a failure of a property owner to clear snow from the abutting pavement, as required by a Baltimore City Ordinance, does not create a liability for an injury to a pedestrian sustained by reason of the violation of the duty imposed by the ordinance. Weisner v. Mayor and City Council of Rockville, Md., 225 A.2d 648 (1967), and cases therein cited. They contend, however, that once a property owner has undertaken to clear away the snow, it is under the duty to use reasonable care in the performance of the act so undertaken, and is responsible for injuries sustained by reason of a negligent failure to perform the act properly. We do not reach the legal question involved in this contention, see Honolulu Limited v. Cain, 244 Md. 590, 224 A.2d 433 (1966), for we agree with Judge O'Donnell, in his thorough oral opinion that there was no evidence which would have entitled the appellants to recover under any legal theory.

The Judge assumed, arguendo, that the appellee might be liable if it had cleaned the sidewalk imperfectly, but held that, in any event, there was no evidence that the work of removing the snow had been negligently performed. The record sustains that conclusion. Nor, if it be assumed ice had formed after the snow had been cleared, was there any evidence adduced by the appellants or any reasonable inference from the testimony that the appellee knew or by the exercise of reasonable care could have discovered that the sidewalk had been left in a condition dangerous to pedestrians. Compare Honolulu, supra. See Weisner, supra.

In any event, there was no evidence sufficient to go to the jury that Mrs. Dorsch sustained her injuries on the premises of the appellee or on the sidewalk which abutted the premises. Judge O'Donnell accurately...