Seaman v. State to Use of Jeter

• Decision Date: 13 May 1957
• Docket Number: No. 180,180
• Citation: 213 Md. 359,131 A.2d 871
• Parties: Morris SEAMAN et ux. v. STATE of Maryland, use of Lula JETER et al., etc.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 359

213 Md. 359

131 A.2d 871

Morris SEAMAN et ux.

v.

STATE of Maryland, use of Lula JETER et al., etc.

No. 180.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

May 13, 1957.

Max Sokol and Melvin J. Sykes, Baltimore (Eugene P. Smith and M. William Adelson, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.

Wallace Dann, Baltimore (Howard Calvert Bregel and Calvert Ross Bregel, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

Before BRUNE, C. J., and COLLINS, HENDERSON, HAMMOND and PRESCOTT, JJ.

PRESCOTT, Judge.

These are two appeals in two cases filed against Morris Seaman and his wife, appellants, for damages for the death of Arthur William Jeter on November 9, 1953, which resulted from injuries sustained in an accident that occurred on November 6, 1953. One case was filed for the use of Jeter's wife and minor daughter and the other by his administratrix. The two cases were consolidated and tried at the same time. At the conclusion of the appellees' case, the appellants filed a motion for a directed verdict, and a similar motion was filed when all of the evidence had been received. These motions were overruled, and the jury rendered verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs below in both cases. The appellants filed motions for judgment n. o. v. and for a new trial. The trial Judge granted the motions for a new trial unless the plaintiffs in both cases filed remittiturs by a certain date. The remittiturs were filed, and final judgments were entered against the appellants. It is from these judgments that these appeals were taken. As the same questions are involved in both appeals, they shall be treated as one, and the parties referred to as 'appellants' and 'appellees'.

In determining the question of whether the trial Court ruled properly upon the appellants' motions for directed verdicts, all of the appellees' testimony must be assumed to be true, and the Court must draw such inferences as may naturally and legitimately be deduced therefrom which tend to support the appellees' rights of recovery. In other words, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to them.

The parties stipulated as follows:

'1. That the premises known as 414 South Bond Street were, at the time of the accident mentioned in these proceedings, owned by Morris Seaman and Bessie Seaman, his wife, they being defendants herein.

'2. That Arthur William Jeter, deceased, was a tenant of said property * * *, that he was the tenant of the second floor rear; that said premises are on the west side of Bond Street and that at the north side of said building there is an outside stairway giving access to the second floor; that said stairway constitutes sole access provided by the landlord for tenants and others to the second and third floors.

'3. That the accident out of which these proceedings arise took place on November 6, 1953, about 6:30 P.M.'

Minnie Williams, a witness called by the appellees, testified that she was a friend of Mrs. Jeter and had lived close by for several years; that she had visited the Jeters a few days before Mr. Jeter's fall; that the treads of the steps on the stairway had cream colored linoleum on them 'all the way up'; that there was no roof over the steps, but there was one over the landing; that as she started down the steps, it was raining and she slipped on the linoleum; that she did not know whether the linoleum went all the way across (from side to side) the steps or not; and that the steps 'wasn't fixed right'.

Olie Miller, another witness called by the appellees, testified that he had lived at the same address as the Jeters for two or three months before the accident; that on November 6, 1953, the treads of the steps were covered with linoleum that was 'pretty worn'; that there was no roof over the steps, but there was one at the 'top'; that there was linoleum at the 'top of the landing'; that a couple of days after Mr. Jeter's death, the steps were all 'cleaned off' and no covering over them after that; that he thereafter put a light at the top of the steps at Mr. Seaman's request; that the linoleum extended 'all the way across' the steps and it was put down with tacks, but had no metal nosing on it; and that the linoleum was slippery when it was wet.

Mrs. Bolen, the sister of the last witness, was then offered by the appellees and stated that she had lived with her brother for about four days before Mr. Jeter's injury; that before the accident, there was linoleum on all of the steps and when damp it was slippery; that she did not think she would call what was there a 'railing', but there was a 'piece of board, and it was loose'; that about November 2nd, she had ballerina slippers on and she went up about three of the steps and maybe because the steps were damp she 'fell'; that there was no light on the stairs; that she could not 'rightfully say' whether it was the slippers or the condition of the steps that caused her to fall; and that she 'reported' this fall to Mr. Seaman. She did not elaborate on this statement, and made no mention of her stating to Mr. Seaman what had caused her to fall, or that the steps were slippery.

Ruth Thompson, a daughter of the deceased, who lived across the street from him, was the next witness on behalf of the appellees. She related to the Court and jury that she frequently visited her father; that there was linoleum on the steps and the railing was 'awful shabby' and when 'you touched it, it shook'; that she was pregnant and had difficulty 'maneuvering on the stairs' because of their condition; that the steps had linoleum on them and the railing was 'awful shaky' and there was no light on the stairway; that it was snowing and 'slippery' on the day her father fell, and she fell down the steps on that same day.

At this point, the deposition of Jean Jeter, aged 17 years, another daughter of the deceased, was read into the record. In it, she stated that it was raining and sleeting on the day her father was injured; and, that she had gone up and down the stairway several times that day and the 'steps was real shaky'.

The wife of the deceased, Lula Jeter, then took the stand, and testified that she had moved to the second story apartment about the last of August, 1953; that the outside steps had linoleum 'all over the tops' of the treads, and the banister was 'shaky'; that the linoleum was on the steps when she moved there; that on the day her husband was injured it began to snow in the 'morning time' and it snowed practically all day and it was still snowing when she arrived home at about six o'clock in the evening; that her husband arrived home shortly thereafter and she was 'looking out the door watching him come in'; that she 'seen him coming up the steps' and 'he got about halfway' and it 'looked like his feet slipped out from under him and he started falling backwards' and she opened the door and by the time she got to him 'why he just--'; that her husband was carrying a package in his right arm and his left arm was 'on this banister'; that her husband fell backwards and when she reached him, his head 'had hit right into the concrete'; and, that her husband slipped from the fourth or fifth step to the 'bottom or cement step at the bottom' and turned and fell backward against the stone wall.

From this evidence, ...