Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Roch

• Decision Date: 14 January 1931
• Docket Number: 50.
• Parties: GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO. v. ROCH.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

153 A. 22

160 Md. 189

GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO. v. ROCH.

No. 50.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

January 14, 1931

Appeal from Baltimore City Court; Eli Frank, Judge.

Action by Sophia Roch against the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before BOND, C.J., and PATTISON, URNER, ADKINS, OFFUT DIGGES, and SLOAN, JJ.

Daniel S. Sullivan, of Baltimore (James O. Scrimger, of Baltimore on the brief), for appellant.

Edwin T. Dickerson and Max Sokol, both of Baltimore, for appellee.

SLOAN J.

The appellee, Sophia Roch, brought suit against the appellant the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, and secured a verdict against it for certain wrongs alleged to have been committed against her by the manager of one of the appellant's grocery stores located on the Belair road in Baltimore.

The declaration, after describing the nature of the appellant's business and stating that the appellee was one of its customers, went on to say: "On or about the 12th day of July, 1929, the defendant, through a certain Mr West, its agent, servant and employee and manager of said store premises, caused a package to be prepared in said store premises for delivery to the said plaintiff and caused the delivery boy employed by the said defendant in said store premises to deliver said package to the plaintiff; that under the explicit instructions of the said manager of the said defendant's store the said delivery boy handed said package to the plaintiff at the entrance of her dwelling, 3219 Belair Road, in the City of Baltimore, State of Maryland, and under and by virtue of the explicit directions of the said manager of the said defendant's store, said delivery boy said to the plaintiff then and there, 'Mr. West said you had better open it while I am here'; that the Plaintiff then and there opened said package and then and there in said package the Plaintiff saw a dead rat; as a result thereof the Plaintiff became very sick and ill in body and mind, fainted and fell with great force to the floor, and as a result thereof her nervous system suffered and still is suffering excruciating physical pain and mental anguish and other injuries were then and there sustained by her, and the Plaintiff says that her said injuries were caused by reason of the careless, reckless and negligent act of the Defendant, its agents, servants and employes in the premises, in preparing the package aforesaid, causing the same to be delivered to the plaintiff in the manner and form hereinbefore set forth."

The defendant (appellant) demurred to the declaration, and, its demurrer having been overruled, it pleaded over, and the trial proceeded to a verdict for the plaintiff (appellee).

The rights of the defendant on the demurrer being preserved on appeal (Code, article 75, § 10), the sufficiency of the declaration will receive first consideration here, and that without regard to the facts presented in evidence, as the evidence cannot be availed of to supply omissions or correct defects in a declaration.

The declaration as drawn presents a case against the defendant, popularly known as the "A. and P. Store" for injuries sustained by the plaintiff as a result of a practical joke perpetrated by it. Under the decisions of this court damages may be recovered for physical injuries caused by fright or shock. Baltimore City Passenger Ry. Co. v. Kemp, 61 Md. 80; Green v. Shoemaker, 111 Md. 69, 73 A. 688, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 667; Baltimore & O. R. R. v. Harris, 121 Md. 254, 88 A. 282; Patapsco Loan Co. v. Hobbs, 129 Md. 9, 98 A. 239; Bohlen's Studies in the Law of Torts, 288-290. The declaration as drawn is in accord with the cases cited, and the demurrer was properly overruled.

There was no evidence to support the facts alleged in the...