Windsor v. Goldscheider
| Decision Date | 07 December 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 661,661 |
| Parties | Matt WINDSOR v. Joseph GOLDSCHEIDER and Frieda Goldscheider. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Samuel Intrater, Washington, D. C. (Albert Brick, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellant.
William A. Ehrmantraut, Rockville (Edward C. Donahue, John J. Mitchell and James P. Gleason, Rockville, on the brief), for appellees.
Before HAMMOND, C. J., and BARNES, McWILLIAMS, FINAN and SINGLEY, JJ.
This appeal is from a judgment granted by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County on appellees' motion for a directed verdict at the close of appellant's case. The trial judge stated that appellant had failed to make out a prima facie case of negligence and, furthermore, that appellant was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
The facts, for the most part, are undisputed. We think, viewing the testimony, and the inferences from it, in a light most favorable to the appellant, that there was sufficient evidence presented by the appellant, as the plaintiff below, from which the jury could have reasonably found for the appellant and that the lower court must be reversed.
The appellant was a tenant in the appellees' apartment house for about two years before July, 1962. For about six months prior to July, 1962, a chain link fence ran the length of a cement path that extended from the apartment house to the street sidewalk. The chain link portion of the fence was affixed to the top metal tubular rail of the fence by a series of twisted metallic wires which encircled the top rail and projected out on the far side of the fence at right angles to the fence. These projections were not readily visible from the path. There was no evidence that the method used in twisting the metallic wires and leaving them as projections was the proper and usual method of erecting this type of fence.
On the date involved, the appellant was walking with his three year old son down the cement path towards the sidewalk. The child broke away from appellant's grasp and ran toward the heavily traveled street. The appellant ran after the child and reached over to the fence to steady himself as he approached two steps. His hand was gashed by one of the wire twists at the top of the fence. He caught the child just as he was about to enter the busy street.
It is settled in Maryland that the mere ownership of land does not render one liable for injuries sustained by persons entering thereon, but where a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Macke Laundry Service Co. v. Weber
... ... To the same effect are Arshack v. Carl M. Freeman Associates, 260 Md. 269, 274, 272 A.2d 30 (1971); Windsor ... v. Goldscheider, 248 Md. 220, 222, 236 A.2d 16 (1967); Elmar Gardens, Inc. v. Odell, 227 Md. 454, 457, 177 A.2d 263 (1962) ... ...
-
Shields v. Wagman
...thereafter to protect against injury by reason of it." Langley Park Apts., 234 Md. at 410, 199 A.2d at 624. In Windsor v. Goldscheider, 248 Md. 220, 221, 236 A.2d 16, 17 (1967), we reversed a granting of a directed verdict in favor of the defendant/landlord where the tenant was cut when he ......
-
Rivas v. OXON HILL
...350 Md. 666, 673-74, 714 A.2d 881 (1998); Macke Laundry Serv. Co. v. Weber, 267 Md. 426, 435, 298 A.2d 27 (1972); Windsor v. Goldscheider, 248 Md. 220, 222, 236 A.2d 16 (1967); Langley Park Apartments, Sec. H., Inc. v. Lund Adm'r, 234 Md. 402, 407, 199 A.2d 620 (1964). "[L]andlord liability......
-
Arshack v. Carl M. Freeman Associates, Inc.
...than the exercise of ordinary care and diligence to maintain the retained parts in a reasonably safe condition. Windsor v. Goldscheider, 248 Md. 220, 222, 236 A.2d 16 (1967); Langley Park Apts., etc. v. Lund, Adm'r, 234 Md. 402, 199 A.2d 620 (1964); Landay v. Cohn, 220 Md. 24, 27, 150 A.2d ......