Robinson v. Heil
Decision Date | 17 May 1916 |
Docket Number | 28. |
Citation | 98 A. 195,128 Md. 645 |
Parties | ROBINSON v. HEIL |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Baltimore City Court; Robt. F. Stanton, Judge.
"To be officially reported."
Action by Maggie Heil, infant, against Alice Robinson. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BURKE, THOMAS, PATTISON, and STOCKBRIDGE, JJ.
William H. Price, Jr., and William C. Coleman, both of Baltimore (Semmes, Bowen & Semmes, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
Ralph Robinson, of Baltimore (Isidor Goldstrom, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
The appeal in this case was taken by the defendant from a judgment for $1,000 dollars entered against her in the Baltimore city court in a suit for personal injuries sustained by Maggie Heil, an infant, under the following circumstances: Alice Robinson, the defendant below, and appellant here, at the time of the injuries complained of was the owner of a dwelling house in Baltimore city, situated on North Caroline street. Drayton M. Hite, a real estate dealer had charge of the house with authority to rent the same and to collect the rents. About the 1st of June, 1914, he rented the house from month to month at a monthly rental of $20 payable in advance, to Mrs. Maggie Heil, the mother of the infant plaintiff. The entrance to the basement was by means of steps leading from the street, and the usual and customary way of entering the house was by the use of these steps.
In November, 1914, at night, when the plaintiff, who was then 12 years of age, was entering the house by these basement steps they collapsed and threw her. She was very seriously, and perhaps permanently injured. The painful and serious nature of her injuries is fully established by the evidence, and was not really disputed. The injury occurred more than five months after the rental of the premises. The facts upon which the plaintiff bases her right to recover, as set out in the declaration, are:
That at the time Mr. Hite, the agent of the defendant, rented the premises to the mother of the plaintiff,
There can be no doubt that these steps were in bad condition both before and after the time the house was rented to Mrs. Heil. The prior tenant, Mrs. Levin, had called the attention of Mr. Hite to their bad condition. It is undisputed that prior to the time the property was rented to Mrs. Heil she called the attention of Mr. Hite to the condition of the steps, and told him she would not take the house unless he would make the repairs, and her daughter, Mrs. Tarleton, testified that on three occasions after her mother had moved into the house she talked to Mr. Hite about the condition of the steps. It was admitted that Drayton M. Hite was the agent of the defendant, clothed with all the authority generally exercised by real estate agents; that he had no special instructions from the defendant; that it was his custom to account to her for the rent; and that he would deduct from the rent any repairs which he may have placed upon the property. Mrs. Heil testified to four distinct repairs that she required to be made as a condition of her renting the property, viz., the papering of two rooms on the second floor, the repair of the sink in the kitchen, the repair of the yard fence, and the repair of the basement steps. She said that Mr. Hite did paper the two rooms and fix the sink, but wholly neglected to repair the steps or the yard fence.
The court admitted, subject to exception, the testimony of Mrs. Heil that Mr. Hite promised before she rented the house that he would make these repairs; that she told him the steps looked like they were in bad condition, and that he said, "If they are not broken down, they will not hurt anybody, but I will fix them, and I will have everything repaired and fixed in the house for you and you can move in," and that she did move in with that understanding; that he promised to fix everything and put everything in good condition.
Mrs. Tarleton testified, subject to exception, that she paid the rent to Mr. Hite and told him that the steps should be fixed, and that he said, '
The court overruled motions to strike out the testimony of Mrs. Heil and Mrs. Tarleton as to any promise or agreement made by Mr. Hite to make repairs, and these rulings constitute the first and second exceptions.
It is important to know the exact condition of the steps and the knowledge of this condition possessed by Mrs. Heil and the plaintiff before the injury. The plaintiff testified that before the injury no one had ever spoken to her about the steps. After they had collapsed it was found that the support on the side of the wall was completely rotten, and that as the child put her foot upon the third step it gave away and threw her. Mrs. Heil, who is a widow, testified that she had noticed the condition of the steps before she moved in, but did not know they were rotten; that they looked like they were a little worn; that she did not know their condition was so bad as disclosed after they had fallen. She said:
She further testified:
Upon the facts stated we think the court committed no error in its rulings embraced in the first and second exceptions. The agency of Drayton M. Hite was admitted, and he had, in fact, made some repairs to the property, and it was further admitted that it was his custom to account to the defendant for the rent collected and deduct from the rent the cost...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Van Avery v. Platte Val. Land & Inv. Co.
...the end to be achieved. Miles v. Janvrin, supra; Fiorntino v. Mason, supra; Carroll v. Intercolonial Club, supra; see, also, Robinson v. Heil, 128 Md. 645, 98 A. 195; Collison v. Curtner, 141 Ark. 122, 216 S.W. 1059, A.L.R. 760.In the case now at hand, the promise, if there was any, was to ......
-
Stevens v. Yale
...the tenant in his person or property in an action of tort in consequence of his negligence in failing to make the repair. In Robinson v. Heil, 128 Md. 645, 98 A. 195, it is " There is much diversity of opinions in other jurisdictions upon the question as to the right of the tenant or a memb......
-
Edelman v. Monouydas
...the injury was not called to the landlord's attention. See also Pinkerton v. Slocomb, 126 Md. 665, 95 A. 965. In Robinson v. Heil, 128 Md. 645, 653, 98 A. 195, 198, it was said: 'An action (of tort) will for the negligent failure of the landlord to make the repairs agreed upon where it is s......
-
Forest Hill Permanent Bldg. Ass'n of Harford County v. Fisher
...to determine under proper instructions. Groscup v. Downey, 105 Md. 273, 65 A. 930; Brager v. Levy, 122 Md. 554, 90 A. 102; Robinson v. Heil, 128 Md. 645, 98 A. 195. There be no doubt that in the situation here presented the burden rested on the defendant building association to prove the au......