Long v. Joestlein

• Decision Date: 19 May 1949
• Docket Number: 160.
• Parties: LONG v. JOESTLEIN.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

66 A.2d 407

193 Md. 211

LONG v. JOESTLEIN.

No. 160.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

May 19, 1949

Appeal from Superior Court of Baltimore City; Robert France, Judge.

Action by Caroline Joestlein against Dr. John H. Long to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff in a fall while employed as a domestic servant by defendant. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Reversed without a new trial.

Michael P. Crocker, Baltimore, and John W. T. Webb, Baltimore (Jesse Slingluff, Jr., Baltimore, and Marbury, Miller & Evans, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

Howard H. Conaway, Baltimore (Frank, Skeen & Oppenheimer, Baltimore on the brief), for appellee.

Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON, and MARKELL, JJ.

DELAPLAINE, Judge.

This action was brought in the Superior Court of Baltimore City by Caroline Joestlein, a domestic servant, against Dr. John H Long to recover for personal injuries which she sustained on September 5, 1947, when she fell down a stairway in defendant's home on Woodbrook Lane.

Plaintiff who was 69 years old at the time of the accident, was employed by Dr. Long as a companion for his two young sons while Mrs. Long was on a visit out of the city. About 6:30 p. m., Daylight Saving Time, after the boys had taken off their bathing suits on the second floor of the home, plaintiff decided to carry the wet suits down the back stairs to the first floor. The residence, which was designed by a firm of architects in 1926, consists of a main section and a wing on each side. On account of the fact that the floor level of the main section is 8 inches higher than the floor level of the wings, there is an 8-inch step at the end of the hall on the second floor. Below the step is a landing, 4 feet square, at the head of the stairway. On one side of the landing is a circular window one foot and a half in diameter. On the other side is a storage closet. Plaintiff testified that, while she was carrying the bathing suits in her left hand, she saw the railing of the staircase, but did not see the step or the landing, and before she could take hold of the railing with her right hand, she 'stepped into space and fell,' tumbling down the flight of seven or eight steps to the lower landing, where the steps turn in the opposite direction to the first floor. She sustained a fracture of a vertebra, which necessitated hospital treatment and the application of a spinal cast.

The trial judge overruled defendant's motion for a directed verdict. The case was thereupon submitted to the jury, and their verdict was in favor of plaintiff for $2,500. From the judgment entered thereon defendant brought this appeal.

It is a familiar principle of law that mere ownership of land or buildings does not render one liable for injuries sustained by persons who have entered therein, as the owner is not an insurer of the safety of such persons, even though he has invited them to enter. A property owner's liability to an invitee for injuries not intentionally inflicted must be predicated upon negligence, and there is no presumption of negligence on the part of an owner merely upon a showing that an injury has been sustained by a person while rightfully upon the premises. The general rule is well settled that an owner of land or buildings, who invites employees or others to go upon his premises, owes to such persons a duty to exercise care to have his premises in a reasonably safe condition and to give warning of any latent or concealed dangers. If an owner or occupant negligently allows a dangerous condition to exist on his premises, and leads invitees into a dangerous trap or exposes them to an unreasonable risk, and fails to give them warning of latent or concealed dangers, which are known to him but not to them, he is liable in damages to any injured persons, if they used ordinary care. But there is no duty upon the owner or occupant to warn an invitee of a dangerous condition which is obvious to a person of ordinary care and prudence. Charles C. Fulton Building Co. v. Stichel, 135 Md. 542, 545, 109 A. 434; Texas Co. v. Washington, B. & A. Electric R. Co., 147 Md. 167, 173, 127 A. 752, 40 A.L.R. 495; Pinehurst Co. v. Phelps, 163 Md. 68, 160 A. 736; Beverly Beach Club v. Marron, 172 Md. 471, 192 A. 278; O'Neill & Co. v. Crummitt, 172 Md. 53, 60, 190 A. 763; Yaniger v. Calvert Building & Construction Co., 183 Md. 285, 288, 37 A.2d 263; Elzey v. Boston Metals Co., Md., 56 A.2d 692; Bennett v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 102 U.S. 577, 26 L.Ed. 235.

It is an accepted principle in the law of negligence that, in the construction and maintenance of a building, the owner discharges his obligation to exercise due care toward those to whom he owes a duty to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition if he conforms to established custom in the particular instance, provided that such customary method of construction and maintenance is not inherently dangerous or obviously improper. Bruce v. Baer, Mo.App., 76 S.W.2d 423. We realize that one who enters a store, theatre, office building or hotel is entitled to expect that his host will make far greater preparations to secure the safety of his patrons than a householder will make for his social or even his business visitors. One entering a private residence, even for purposes connected with the owner's business, is entitled to expect only such preparation as a reasonably prudent householder makes for the reception of such visitors. Moore v. American Stores Co., 169 Md. 541, 547, 182 A. 436; 2 Restatment, Torts, sec. 343 (e). Generally, where the owner of real property has reason to apprehend danger from the peculiar condition of his property and its liability to cause injury, the question whether the owner is liable to an invitee who has been injured on the premises is for the consideration of the jury. However, where the trial judge finds no breach of duty on the part of the owner, the case should be withdrawn from the jury, for where an invitee seeks to hold the owner liable for injuries sustained on the ground of his negligence, there must be evidence from which a jury can reasonably infer negligence on the part of the owner.

In the case at bar the stairway was in no way unusual in construction. Nor was there evidence of any defective condition. Hence, it did not present any unusual danger. The law is clear that the maintenance of a well lighted stairway leading down from the floor to which persons are invited, guarded on all sides except where the steps meet the floor, does not constitute negligence which will render the owner liable for injuries to an invitee who falls down the stairs. F. W. Woolworth & Co. v. Conboy, 8 Cir., 170 F. 934, 23 L.R.A.,N.S., 743. In a Massachusetts case, where a shopper sought recovery for injuries from a fall on a stairway, Chief Justice Holmes said: 'There is no duty on the part of a shopkeeper to give warning of the presence of an ordinary flight of stairs in broad daylight, or to guard the necessary access to it, even if there is a crowd in his shop. * * * Every one who is on an upper story knows that there probably are stairs from it somewhere, and must look out for them. * * * The case is different from that of a hole in the floor which commonly is covered, and which is of a kind not to be expected.' Hunnewll v. Haskell, 174 Mass. 557, 55 N.E. 320.

Plaintiff however, contends that, although the window furnished light for the landing, the step above the landing was dangerous, as there was nothing to give warning of it to a person walking toward the stairway. It is an accepted rule that the presence of different floor levels, connected by a...