Stehle Equipment Co. v. Alpha Const. & Development Co.

• Decision Date: 26 June 1967
• Docket Number: No. 494,494
• Citation: 247 Md. 210,230 A.2d 654
• Parties: STEHLE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Inc. v. ALPHA CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CO.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 210

247 Md. 210

230 A.2d 654

STEHLE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Inc. v. ALPHA CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CO.

No. 494.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 26, 1967.

Donald L. Merriman, Baltimore (Merriman & Merriman, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

Barry I. Robinson, Baltimore (Sullivan & Pitler, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

Before HAMMOND, C. J., and HORNEY, MARBURY, OPPENHEIMER, BARNES, McWILLIAMS and FINAN, JJ.

MARBURY, Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant, Stehle Equipment Company, Inc., in the business of renting heavy equipment, rented an undamaged Le Roi compressor to Alpha Construction & Development Company, defendant-appellee. In the course of its use, the compressor was damaged, and appellant sued appellee in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County to recover the damages. Appellee moved for a directed verdict at the close of the appellant's case and renewed its motion at the close of the entire case on the ground that no bailment was established. The court denied both motions, but granted judgment (without stating its grounds for decision, none having been requested under Maryland Rule 18 c) in favor of the appellee at the conclusion of the case after appellee declined to offer evidence. From this judgment, the equipment company has appealed.

On May 14, 1964, appellant rented a Le Roi compressor to appellee to be operated and used by appellee at one of its job sites in Annapolis. The compressor was self-propelling with four forward gears and one reverse gear, which were marked on the top of the gear shift. To engage the gears it was necessary to depress the clutch, and to get it into reverse it was necessary to depress a button on the gear shift while depressing the clutch. The same motor that propelled the compressor was used to compress air. At about 2:00 p. m. on the day it was damaged, the compressor was driven some eight blocks from St. John's College in Annapolis, where it had been used without difficulty at various locations for a week, to a parking lot on Cathedral Street, where it was to be used that evening. The eight block trip was made without incident. Appellant's agent parked the compressor on a parking lot which was reached by driving up a ramp. The parking lot was fairly level, and on one side there was a retaining wall which was twelve feet high, but the top of which was only three or four inches above the surface of the parking lot. The agent of the appellant backed the compressor up to the retaining wall so that its rear wheels were within three to four feet from the wall with the body of the compressor only one foot from the wall. The agent took the compressor out of gear, applied the brakes, and turned the ignition off. The keys to the compressor were given to appellee's agent, who was on the premises.

Appellant called to testify the employee of appellee, Louis F. Adams, who operated the compressor at the time it was damaged. The employee testified that prior to using it, he 'checked the tractor (the compressor) out,' laid out the air hose, attached an air gun to the hose, put chocks behind the rear wheels, checked to make sure the gears were disengaged, found them to be in neutral, and made sure the brakes were locked. The employee then climbed upon the machine; and as soon as he started it, 'the tractor just went right back over the wall * * *.'

Appellant was notified that the compressor was damaged. Upon investigation it was found that the compressor was teetering over the wall, with its housing broken. Appellant filed a claim with its insurance carrier and was paid $1800 pursuant to the terms of the policy. Appellant testified...