Silberg v. Klawans
| Decision Date | 07 November 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 46,46 |
| Citation | 230 Md. 30,185 A.2d 389 |
| Parties | Sylvia SILBERG et al. v. Herbert KLAWANS (Kaye) et ux. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Donald L. Merriman, Baltimore (Merriman & Merriman, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.
T. Benjamin Weston and Robert J. Thieblot, Baltimore (Thomas G. Andrew and Rollins, Smalkin, Weston & Andrew, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, PRESCOTT, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.
The appellant, Sylvia Silberg, and her husband brought actions to recover for injuries sustained by her while a social guest in the home of the appellees. The case was submitted to a jury, who found for the defendants under an instruction which the appellants claim was erroneous. Both briefs contain excellent and exhaustive discussions of the problem, said to be novel in this State, as to the duty owed to a social guest. The appellees also content, however, that even if the duty owed is, as contended by the appellants, the same as that owed to a business invitee, set out in the case of Evans v. Hot Shoppes, Inc., 223 Md. 235, 239, 164 A.2d 273 and cases cited, there was no legally sufficient evidence to take the case to the jury, and their demurrer prayers should have been granted. Since we agree with this contention, we need not now decide the question posed as to the court's instruction.
Mrs. Siberg was wearing high heeled, strapless pumps at the time of the accident, the heels being some three inches high, and 3/8's of an inch in diameter at the base or left. She fell down a well lighted flight of stairs leading to a recreation room which were completely covered, as was the floor at the top, with wall to wall carpet. There was no witness to the accident, and Mrs. Silberg herself did not then know what caused her to fall. Some months later, when she saw photographs of the scene, she concluded that, although her shoe did not come off, she must have caught her heel in a seam in the carpet where the convering of the top step met the covering of the floor. There was testimony that the seam was about five inches from the edge of the top step, and that the two carpets, of different color and material although of the same thickness, were securely fastened together, having been glued to a linen tape and pad underneath, and cross stitched on top. There was testimony from the plaintiff's witness that this method was 'in excess' of what would normally be required. There was also testimony that the 'proper' method of 'seaming' a carpet was to place the seam in the 'crotch' between the riser and tread of the top step, because foot pressure had a tendency to break a seam. But there was no evidence of a break in the instant case, or any other defect. Nor was there any testimony that the existence of a properly fastened seam was in and of itself a dangerous condition. The first floor carpet had been in place when the appellees bought the house. They employed a professional carpet man to install the carpet on the stairs. Mr. Silberg...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paquin v. McGinnis, 294
...of what duty is owed by a host to a social guest in his home was raised in Sugar v. Traub, 233 Md. 320, 196 A.2d 869, and Silberg v. Klawans, 230 Md. 30, 185 A.2d 389, but these cases were decided on other grounds. The question has never been answered by this Court, and it is before us once......
-
Sugar v. Traub
... ... Both parties briefed and argued the point carefully and at length. However, as in Silberg v ... Klawans, 230 Md. 30, 185 A.2d 389 (1962), we do not reach the question since we think the evidence shows that the appellant was guilty of ... ...