Steinman v. Baltimore Antiseptic Steam Laundry Co.
| Decision Date | 04 December 1908 |
| Citation | 71 A. 517,109 Md. 62 |
| Parties | STEINMAN v. BALTIMORE ANTISEPTIC STEAM LAUNDRY CO. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Baltimore City Court; George M. Sharp, Judge.
Action by Edith Blanche Steinman against the Baltimore Antiseptic Steam Laundry Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before BOYD, C.J., and PEARCE, SCHMUCKER, BURKE, and WORTHINGTON, JJ.
Arthur L. Jackson, for appellant.
W Stewart Symington, for appellee.
This is an action of trespass vi et armis by the appellant against the appellee for an alleged assault and battery committed by an agent and servant of the defendant corporation in the regular course of his employment by the defendant. The defendant is a laundry company, duly incorporated.
The plaintiff, who is a married woman, to prove her case produced only two witnesses. Her first witness was G. E Saffron, who testified that he was route superintendent of defendant at the time of the alleged assault, and that he was required in the discharge of his duty to adjust disputes about the work done by the laundry company, the nondelivery or misdeliversy, of laundered goods, and complaints made to the laundry company, or claims presented against the company. On cross-examination he said he was authorized to compromise or settle claims under 50 cents, but for any claim over that amount he was obliged to obtain the authority of the manager of the company. He also said he was authorized to collect money due the company; that, when the wagon drivers deliver work without getting the money, they do so at their own risk; and that in such case he is authorized to compromise the claims under 50 cents, but that he has no authority to arrest persons against whom the company has claims for work done. He also stated that, when a driver is sick or discharged, he takes his wagon at the laundry, and that, when he went to Mrs. Steinman's house on the day of the alleged assault, he went of his own accord to collect his own money. The plaintiff, Mrs. Steinman, was the only other witness. She testified: That Saffron came to her house on the day of the alleged assault, and said: "Let me see the blankets that were left here." That she brought the blankets, and said: "Are they the wrong blankets?" And he said: "No; they are the right blankets, and I am going to take them with me." That she said: "No; you are not," and he put his hands on the blankets, and she said, "No; you are not," and put her hands on them. That he then said: "There is a police across the street, and, if you don't take your hands off the blankets, I will call him and have the policeman arrest you." She says she thought he had a policeman with him and she turned and looked, and, when she turned, "he took the blankets and went out, and then came back and said, 'Don't tell your husband I frightened you to death;' and then I knew nothing else." She was then asked if he touched her at all, and she replied, "with his knee against my knee" that she was sitting on a chair, and the blankets were on seat beside her; that she was then about four months advanced in pregnancy; that, when his knee touched hers, it caused no pain. She then offered to prove by herself that, after the facts above stated, she fainted, and, when she revived, found she had suffered a uterine hemorrhage, and further offered to prove by a practicing physician of 20 years' standing that he was her physician and knew she was then about four months advanced in pregnancy, and that the uterine hemorrhage testified to by her was a natural result of the nervous shock and fright caused by the conduct of Saffron as described by her. She also offered to prove that her husband about three weeks after this occurrence received a letter from Messrs. Yellott & Symington, attorneys for the laundry company, asking him to call at the laundry for "his two blankets" which he could have on payment of $ 1, the charge for washing them, or they would be sent him on payment of that amount. All this offer of testimony was objected to, and to its exclusion the first exception was taken.
The defendant then offered two prayers withdrawing the case from the jury, both of which were granted. The first of these prayers asserted there was no legally sufficient evidence to entitle the plaintiff to recover, and the second that there was no legally sufficient evidence that the alleged assault was committed by the witness Saffron within the scope of his employment by the defendant. The declaration is unusually brief, merely alleging that But the averments are ample to warrant recovery, if sustained by legally sufficient evidence. It was necessary to prove (1) that an assault was committed by defendant's servant; and (2) that it was committed in the course of his employment. It would not be sufficient to show that a wrong was committed in taking the blankets from the premises and possession of the plaintiff. The exclusion of the testimony offered and the ruling upon the prayers involve but...
To continue reading
Request your trial