Petrol Corp. v. Curtis
| Decision Date | 26 May 1948 |
| Docket Number | 164. |
| Parties | PETROL CORPORATION v. CURTIS. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Superior Court of Baltimore City; Emory H. Niles, Judge.
Action by Ernest G. Curtis, to his own use and to the use of Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, against Petrol Corporation, a body corporate, for personal injuries sustained while helping to fill an oil truck in defendant's yard. From the judgment, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Roszel C. Thomsen, of Baltimore (Clark, Thomsen & Smith, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
Isidor Roman and Max Sokol, both of Baltimore (Jacob J. Edelman and Emanuel H. Horn, both of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Before MARBURY, C.J., DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, and HENDERSON, JJ., and BAILEY, Circuit Judge, specially assigned.
Ernest G. Curtis, a truck driver, instituted this action in tort against Petrol Corporation to recover for personal injuries which he sustained while helping to fill an oil truck in defendant's Canton storage yard in Baltimore. As plaintiff received workmen's compensation from Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, insurer of M. I. O'Boyle & Son, of Washington, his employers, he brought this suit both for himself and to the use of the insurer. He recovered a judgment for $8,000, from which defendant appealed.
It was shown at the trial that plaintiff climbed on top of the truck and put a loading pipe in one of the compartments of the truck, while George Muenzing, one of defendant's clerks, set the meter and turned the switch to let the oil flow into the tank. Plaintiff then pulled the cord to open the valve controlling the pipe. He filled one compartment, and pulled the cord to start the oil in the second when the cord broke at the pulley, throwing him backwards off the truck to the ground. He sustained fractures of his right arm and hip, which totally disabled him for some months and finally resulted in permanent partial disability.
Defendant's main contention was that there was no legally sufficient evidence to show that it was negligent. Edmund F. Tydeman superintendent of the storage yard, testified that prior to the Second World War tiller rope was used to open the valves. The tiller rope, which is strengthened by a wire through the center, seldom broke, for whenever a piece became frayed from the strain at the pulley, a new piece was inserted. During the war, however, tiller rope was unobtainable; and so, when any of the old tiller rope wore out, they substituted sash cord. While the sash cord worked satisfactorily, it usually wore out in a few months. Before the accident chains were ordered but they were not delivered until two days after the accident.
It is an accepted rule that a possessor of land is subject to liability to licensees, whether business visitors or gratuitous licensees, for bodily harm caused to them by his failure to carry on his activities with reasonable care for their safety, unless the licensees know or, from facts known to them, should know of the possessor's activities and of the risk involved therein. 2 Restatement, Torts, sec. 341. The standard of care which a possessor of land owes to a licensee is the same as that which a master owes to his servant. Consolidated Gas, Electric Light & Power Co. v. Chambers, 112 Md. 324, 338, 75 A. 241, 26 L.R.A., N.S., 509. In other words, he is not required to provide the most modern mechanical appliances, but only to use ordinary care to provide reasonably adequate and safe appliances and to keep them in a reasonably safe condition.
Security Cement & Lime Co. v. Bowers, 124 Md. 11, 91 A. 834. Where injuries to employees are caused by inadequate or defective machinery or appliances used in the prosecution of the work for which they are employed, the employer is liable, provided that he knew or, by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence might have known, that the apparatus was defective and unsafe. E. H. Koester Bakery Co. v. Poller, Md., 50 A.2d 234; Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Snyder, 152 U.S. 684, 14 S.Ct. 756, 38 L.Ed. 597. It is thus defendant's duty to furnish reasonably safe loading facilities and to inspect them as often as necessary under the circumstances to keep them in a reasonably safe condition. New Deemer Mfg. Co. v. Wells, 5 Cir., 296 F. 687. Defendant is not required to adopt extraordinary tests for discovering defects in appliances. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Barrett, 166 U.S. 617, 17 S.Ct. 707, 41 L.Ed. 1136. But the duty to inspect the appliances is not discharged by merely employing competent inspectors and delegating the work to them; but the inspectors must perform the work with reasonable care and diligence, and defendant is liable if its inspectors fail to discover a defect which a reasonable inspection would have disclosed. Hix v. New York Central & H. R. R. Co., 230 Mass. 309, 119 N.E. 827; Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Baugh, 149 U.S. 368, 13 S.Ct. 914, 921, 37 L.Ed. 772; Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Snyder, 152 U.S. 684, 14 S.Ct. 756, 38 L.Ed. 597.
In this case the accident happened in the afternoon of October 26 1945. Tydeman, the superintendent, testified that there were two loading racks with facilities for loading 29 trucks. He testified that Muenzing had been instructed to inspect the ropes and sash cords that morning. Muenzing testified that he started to work at 7 a. m., but admitted that he did not inspect any of the ropes or cords that day, claiming that he was too busy. The superintendent admitted that the clerk's failure to inspect on the day of the accident was a violation of instructions, and that if an inspection had been made it would undoubtedly have disclosed that the cord was damaged and weak. As stated in Doherty v. Booth, 200 Mass. 522, 86 N.E. 945, where a rope which, if in proper condition, would be of ample tensile strength to sustain the strain for which it was intended, broke when it was subjected to ordinary strain, the jury from their common experience could find that it would not have broken unless it had become unsound. The superintendent admitted that no signs had been posted on the premises and no written or oral notice had been given to warn truck drivers that sash cord had been substituted for tiller rope at some of the loading pipes. It was for the jury to decide whether defendant had failed to take proper precaution to warn truck drivers that sash cord was not as strong as tiller rope. The jury were warranted in finding that defendant might have discovered the defect in the cord, and therefore was negligent for allowing it to be used without an inspection on the day of the accident. Defendant contended that it was not reasonable to anticipate that the breaking of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial