Hicks v. Hitaffer, 236

Citation256 Md. 659,261 A.2d 769
Decision Date06 February 1970
Docket NumberNo. 236,236
PartiesJames F. HICKS et al. v. Frank M. HITAFFER et al.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland

William H. Clarke, Washington, D. C., for appellants.

John A. Buchanan, Upper Marlboro (Lansdale G. Sasscer, Jr., Sasser, Clagett, Powers & Channing, Upper Marlboro, and Melvin L. Schneider, Hyattsville, on the Brief) for appellee Frank M. Hitaffer.

Thomas L. Samuel, Baltimore (H. Russell Smouse, and Clapp, Somerville, Black & Honemann, Baltimore, on the brief) for appellee The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co.

Albert T. Blackwell, Jr., Mt. Rainier (Couch, Blackwell & Miller, Mt. Rainier, on the brief) for appellee S. B. Pruitt.

Joseph B. Simpson, Jr., Rockville (Vivian V. Simpson, H. Algire McFaul, William T. Wood, Joseph J. D'Erasmo and Simpson & Simpson, Rockville, on the brief) for appellee Jerry Wolman Construction Co.

Before HAMMOND, C. J., and BARNES, FINAN, SMITH, and DIGGES JJ.

SMITH, Judge.

Here we have an attempt to recover on behalf of a nine-year-old boy who lost the sight of one eye as a result of the explosion of a .22 caliber blank cartridge. The brief filed on his behalf says that he and other boys threw rocks at the cartridges and when this 'child's explosive would not go off he took it near his home and hit it with a hammer. It then went off * * *.' Suit was brought on behalf of the boy, Herbert D. Hicks (Herbert), by his parents. The father also sued in his own right. They appear here as appellants. Defendants and appellees here are the land owner, The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company (B & O); the alleged occupant of the land, Frank M. Hitaffer (Hitaffer); the former owner of an automobile junked and sold to Hitafter, S. B. Pruitt (Pruitt); and Pruitt's employer, Jerry Wolman Construction Company (Wolman). Judge Powers in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County sustained demurrers on behalf of all defendants to the amended declaration without leave to further amend, saying:

'The indispensable element of duty is lacking in the minor plaintiff's case. The defendants owed no duty to him, as a trespasser or licensee, '* * * except to abstain from wilful or wanton misconduct and entrapment.' See Herring v. Christensen, 252 Md. 240 (249 A.2d 718), and cases cited therein. I cannot read wilful or wanton misconduct or entrapment into any of the acts of the defendants as alleged in the Amended Declaration.'

We shall sustain the ruling of Judge Powers.

The declaration states that young Hicks on April 3, 1967, was nine years of age, that on that day he sustained an injury to his eye 'as the result of the negligence and carelessness of the Defendants and each of them' and, as a result, the right eye was removed on August 3, 1967, and a plastic eye inserted. It alleges, of course, that Herbert was in no way neligent. It further alleges in pertinent part:

'The Defendant Pruitt, prior to the injury to the minor Plaintiff, was involved in an automobile accident and his automobile was damaged to the extent that it was a total loss, which damage included damage to the trunk thereon leaving it open and the contents therein accessible to any person; that he sold his damaged automobile to the Defendant Hitaffer for junk and he knew that the automobile was to be stored on an open field in the back of Defendant Hitaffer's place of business and that said automobile would be readily available to children; that in the trunk of his automobile were hundreds of detonator caps which he used in the course of his employment as a carpenter foreman for the Defendant Jerry Wolman Construction Company; that he stored the detonator caps in the trunk of his car in violation of Article 38(a) (sic) of the Maryland Code, which required the Defendant Pruitt to store explosives in a safe and secure place for the purpose of making them inaccessible to children and to account for the explosives to his employer in order to prevent them from becoming available to children and further it required him to obtain a license prior to the handling and storage of said explosives; that the Defendant Pruitt, in handling and possessing an inherently dangerous substance, to-wit, explosives, had the common law duty and statutory duty to be extremely careful in safeguarding such explosives and not make them available to or accessible to any person, particularly children, outside of the scope of his employment activities; that he had the duty to remove the explosives from his automobile prior to the sale thereof to the Defendant Hitaffer and further, the duty to warn the Defendant Hitaffer of the presence in the damaged automobile of explosives; that notwithstanding such duties owed to the minor Plaintiff and to the public in violation of Section 38(a) (sic) of the Maryland Code, Defendant Pruitt who was also unlicensed in violation of Section 38(a) (sic) did negligently and carelessly sell his damaged automobile to the Defendant Hitaffer, and cause the minor Plaintiff and other children to pick up detonator caps which were strewn on the ground outside of the car and in the open trunk which in turn caused the minor Plaintiff to loss his right eye when one of the caps exploded, which negligence was a proximate cause of the injuries suffered by the minor Plaintiff herein.

'The Defendant Hitaffer purchased Defendant Pruitt's damaged automobile and at the time of purchased the trunk thereon was damaged and open; that the Defendant Hitaffer and the Defendant Pruitt did place and store the automobile outside of the fenced property belonging to the Defendant Hitaffer in an open field which was indistinguishable to children of tender age as being private property or public property or parkland; that the Defendant Hitaffer knew that minor children did play in the open field to the rear of his property, which field was very close to a public grammar school, and the Defendant Hitaffer placed the Defendant Pruitt's damaged automobile on said field along with other automobiles which field belonged to the Defendant The B & O Railroad Company; that the Defendant Hitaffer permitted and invited children of tender age to play upon the property belonging to the Defendant B & O Railroad; that the Defendant Hitaffer knowing that children would be playing upon and in said automobiles by virtue of his permitting and inviting them to do so, had the duty to inspect said automobiles prior to placing them upon B & O Railroad property to make certain that they were in a safe condition and did not contain therein dangerous substances or explosives which would injure a young child; that he had the further duty not to unlawfully invite and entice young children to play upon property he did not own, particularly since said property was an open area and was not apparent to young children that it was private property; that notwithstanding said duties he negligently and carelessly failed to inspect the Defendant Pruitt's automobile for dangerous substances; he unlawfully authorized minor children, including the minor Plaintiff, to play on and in the car purchased from Defendant Pruitt and other automobiles stored in said field; that he negligently and carelessly put the automobile on the field causing the trunk of the car to open and the detonator caps to be strewn about the field and to be left in plain sight in the open trunk of the car; that notwithstanding said duties as aforesaid, he negligently stored his automobile in an unfenced area on private property belonging to another and he failed to have a license to possess explosives as required by Article 38(a) (sic) of the Maryland Code; that as a result of the violation of said duties as aforesaid his actions proximately contributed to the injuries of the minor Plaintiff.

'The Defendant B & O Railroad Company was the owner of the property on which the Defendant Hitaffer stored the automobile which he purchased from the Defendant, Pruitt, and B & O Railroad Company allowed Hitaffer to store the wrecked automobiles in the open and as the landowner, it had the duty to inspect such automobiles to make sure there were no traps or dangerous instrumentalities or conditions present on its land since its land was unfenced and was indistinguishable to young children to be either private or public property; that it allowed the storage of dangerous instrumentalities thereon and it knew or should have known that children were playing in the area, and being charged with notice, failed to inspect its land and the old stored automobiles thereon that it permitted and allowed to be stored thereon by the Defendant Hitaffer.

'The Defendant Jerry Wolman Construction Company had the duty pursuant to Section 38(a) (sic) of the Maryland Code and by common law to store and safeguard explosives used in construction work and to require its employees to account to it for any supply of explosives used by its employees in its business in order to prevent such explosives from coming into the possession of unauthorized persons, particularly very young children, that notwithstanding such duties the Defendant Construction Company was negligent in that it failed to obtain a permit for the use of explosives as require by Article 38(a) (sic) of the Maryland Code as amended, and it failed to account for the detonator caps which caused the injury to the minor Plaintiff, as required by Section 38(a) (sic), Sections 27, 28 and 29 of the Maryland Code as amended, and it failed to properly inform or instruct its employee, Pruitt, not to take the explosives not necessary in the carrying out of his duties and because of these negligent acts, the Defendant Pruitt was allowed to store dynamite caps or detonator caps in the trunk of his car. Pruitt was then the agent, servant or employee of the Construction Company and was acting within the scope of his employment, and that said negligence on the part of the Defendant Construction Company was a proximate cause of the damages and injuries to the minor Plaintiff.'

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Harrison v. Montgomery County Bd. of Educ.
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 2 Marzo 1983
    ...see, e.g., Bramble v. Thompson, 264 Md. 518, 287 A.2d 265 (1972); Osterman v. Peters, 260 Md. 313, 272 A.2d 21 (1971); Hicks v. Hittaffer, 256 Md. 659, 261 A.2d 769 (1970); Herring v. Christensen, 252 Md. 240, 249 A.2d 718 (1969).12 In other cases, involving dissimilar circumstances, we hav......
  • Sherman v. Suburban Trust Co., 43
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 3 Abril 1978
    ...to a licensee under the traditional common law view except to abstain from wilful or wanton misconduct or entrapment. Hicks v. Hitaffer, 256 Md. 659, 261 A.2d 769 (1970); Levine v. Miller, 218 Md. 74, 145 A.2d 418 (1958); Carroll v. Spencer, 204 Md. 387, 104 A.2d 628 (1954). It has been sai......
  • Baltimore Gas and Elec. Co. v. Lane
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 1 Septiembre 1994
    ...in which children removed personal property from a defendant's land and were thereafter injured by the property. See Hicks v. Hitaffer, 256 Md. 659, 261 A.2d 769 (1970) (boy injured by explosion of .22 caliber blank cartridge); Kirby v. Hylton, 51 Md.App. 365, 443 A.2d 640 (1982) (boy fatal......
  • B. P. Oil Corp. v. Mabe
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 18 Marzo 1977
    ...of that case to recover in Maryland. See the review of Maryland cases relative to trespassers and licensees in Hicks v. Hitaffer, 256 Md. 659, 669-70, 261 A.2d 769 (1970). Prior to the enactment in 1956 of what is now Code (1974) § 10-910 Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article providing th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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