Lloyd v. Bowles, No. 217

• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
• Writing for the Court: Argued before HAMMOND; FINAN
• Citation: 273 A.2d 193,260 Md. 568
• Parties: Velma E. LLOYD v. William BOWLES et al.
• Decision Date: 03 February 1971
• Docket Number: No. 217

Page 568

260 Md. 568 273 A.2d 193 Velma E. LLOYD
v.
William BOWLES et al. No. 217. Court of Appeals of Maryland. Feb. 3, 1971.

Page 569

[273 A.2d 194] Norman R. Lilly, Baltimore, for appellant.

Edward P. Murphy (Matthew Swerdloff and Swerdloff, Albert & Lasover, Baltimore, on the brief) for appellee William Bowles.

Thomas G. Andrew, Baltimore (Rollins, Smalkin, Weston & Andrew, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee Ruby Sokolowski.

Argued before HAMMOND, C. J., and BARNES, McWILLIAMS, FINAN, SMITH and DIGGES, JJ.

FINAN, Judge.

The action giving rise to this appeal was a suit filed by the appellant Velma Lloyd for injuries sustained by her while leaving a beauty parlor owned by the appellee Ruby Sokolowski which was being remodeled by appellee William Bowles. A jury verdict for $7,500 was returned in Baltimore City Court in favor of the appellant. On March 12, 1970, Judge J. Harold Grady entered judgment n. o. v. in favor of both appellees. We must decide in this appeal whether that ruling was correct.

Page 570

The facts behind the lawsuit are somewhat lengthy, but not involved. Before proceeding to a consideration of those facts, we note that in reviewing on appeal a defendant's motion for judgment n. o. v., the evidence and all reasonable inferences to be taken from that evidence must be reviewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. I. O. A. Leasing Corp. v. Merle Thomas Corp., 260 Md. 243, 272 A.2d 1 (1971) (September Term, 1970, decided January 5, 1971); Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Bolton, 229 Md. 321, 326, 182 A.2d 828 (1962). If the defendant introduces any evidence which is undisputed, that evidence may be considered on appeal; however, if the truth of the defendant's evidence is controverted in any way, even if not contradicted, then that evidence may not be considered. Smith v. Bernfeld, 226 Md. 400, 405, 174 A.2d 53 (1961). Therefore, we set forth the facts which were before the jury in the light most favorable to the appellant.

Mrs. Lloyd was a long-time weekly customer at Mrs. Sokolowski's beauty parlor. The approach to the beauty parlor had for some time consisted of a ramp leading from the sidewalk, between two display windows, to the front door, which was recessed some fifteen feet from the building line. Within a week prior to the day of [273 A.2d 195] the accident, remodeling of the entrance had taken place. This remodeling, undertaken to enlarge the working area of the beauty parlor, had progressed to the point that the incline or ramp had been replaced with two concrete steps (consisting of two risers and one tread) leading to a new storm door which was almost flush with the front of the building. The doorsill of the new door was flush with the riser of the top step. The former outside door was now an interior door at the end of a hallway. This remodeling was being performed by appellee Bowles.

The appellant arrived for her appointment at approximately 4:00 P.M. on April 7, 1965, and entered the beauty parlor by was of the new steps. She was leaving the shop at approximately 6:00 P.M. when the accident occurred. She had finished her appointment, proceeded through the interior door which was propped open, opened the new

Page 571

door by pulling it toward her (which placed her one or two feet from the top riser), and took one or two steps before coming to the top riser. Mrs. Lloyd testified that she was wearing her glasses at the time (she had had a cataract removal about six or seven years before, and could see almost nothing without them), that it was 'pretty nearly dark' outside, that she looked down to see what was in front of her when she opened the door, but that the steps and sidewalk 'blended together' and 'looked all like sidewalk.' She further stated that there was no lighting on the steps, that the only out side light came from across the street, and that a large canopy or awning covered the entrance to the beauty parlor. She also noted that there was a light in the ceiling behind her, but 'no lights on the door.' For whatever reason, when Mrs. Lloyd passed through the doorway she thought that she was stepping directly onto the sidewalk and stepped out instead of down. She then fell and broke her hip. On cross-examination Mrs. Lloyd stated that she 'saw the street and steps both,' but reiterated in the same sentence that 'they all looked alike.' ¹ The appellees, through the testimony of Mrs. Sokolowski, introduced evidence that in each of the front windows there were two spotlights which were designed to 'show what was being displayed in the window,' two 70 watt bulbs between the spotlights in each window, and two other bulbs on the side of each window-'enough light to make it really bright.' This is the only evidence relative to the condition of the lighting in the store which the appellant could not be said to have challenged unless one were to regard her general...