Owners' Realty Co. of Baltimore City v. Richardson

• Decision Date: 15 January 1930
• Docket Number: 90.
• Parties: OWNERS' REALTY CO. OF BALTIMORE CITY v. RICHARDSON.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

148 A. 543

158 Md. 367

OWNERS' REALTY CO. OF BALTIMORE CITY v. RICHARDSON.

No. 90.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

January 15, 1930

Appeal from Baltimore City Court; Joseph N. Ulman, Judge.

Suit by Julia May Richardson against the Owners' Realty Company of Baltimore City. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before BOND, C.J., and PATTISON, URNER, ADKINS, OFFUTT PARKE, and SLOAN, JJ.

Walter C. Mylander, of Baltimore (Nathan Patz, of Baltimore, on the briefs), for appellant.

Herbert L. Grymes, of Baltimore, for appellee.

PARKE J.

The Owners' Realty Company of Baltimore City, a corporation is the owner of an apartment house of six stories in Baltimore City, known as the Brexton Apartments. The employer of Julia May Richardson, a stenographer, was confined to his apartment on the fifth floor of the building on November 24 1924, and telephoned her to come to take the dictation of some business letters. Miss Richardson had never been in the Brexton Apartments, so he informed her that she could get to his apartment by climbing a stairway or using an elevator, whose management he explained.

The entrance to the Brexton Apartments is into a hall from which access to the several stories is afforded by a stairway and an elevator. The elevator is not run by an attendant, nor under any supervision, but by those desiring to go to or from the six stories of the house. The entrance to the elevator from every floor is through a solid outer sliding door, which is closed, and cannot be opened, except when the elevator is at the level of the particular floor, and then through a second door, which is on the front of the elevator, and must be opened to enter or leave it. The elevator ascends or descends automatically, either to the floor from which a person intends to enter or to the floor desired by the occupant of the elevator, by pressing a button. In the case of the person desiring to take the elevator, the button is to the side of the outer door; and if the person is an occupant, he presses a button in the elevator. It was in connection with the opening of the second door that Miss Richardson sustained an injury to her finger, for which she brought suit and recovered a judgment against the owner.

The testimony on the record is conflicting. The plaintiff was alone when the accident happened, and there is no one else to testify to what did occur; but her description of the physical conditions at the time, and the other testimony given in support of her action, are contradicted by the witnesses for the defense in such material respects, that not only was the question of veracity sharply raised, but the right of recovery was challenged. However, disputes of fact are for the resolution of the jury, and they determined them against the defendant. There is no exception to evidence, and the granted prayers of the plaintiff and of the defendant submitted every defense raised and in a form of which the defendant cannot complain. If there be reversible error, it can be only because of the refusal of the judge at nisi prius to grant the prayers of the defendant that were a demurrer to the legal sufficiency of the evidence. In passing on that question, this tribunal has nothing to do with the weight of the evidence on disputed facts, but all the testimony supporting plaintiff's demand must be accepted as true on a demurrer to the evidence. So the province of this court is to accept the testimony in support of the action, and to decide if there be legally sufficient evidence to carry the case to the jury for a verdict.

The testimony on the part of the plaintiff tended to show that she walked into the well-lighted hall of the apartment about noon, and that, in addition to its being the first time she had been in the building, the plaintiff had...