Glover v. Gar-Bern Building & Development Co.

Hammond, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Ann Glover, the appellant, was employed as a dental assistant in an office in an apartment house owned by one appellee and managed by another. As she was leaving on a day in winter, she fell on a sidewalk just outside the office and broke her leg. She sued the owner and manager of the apartment house for failing to keep the sidewalk free of ice and snow, and a jury found for the defendants.

In her appeal to this Court Miss Glover makes but one contention — that the trial court erred to her prejudice in permitting the appellees to cross-examine her witness beyond the scope of the direct examination. She complains that the appellees proved their cause by her witness, arguing that this was impermissible and improper. We find no substance in her contention. Miss Glover called as her witness the maintenance man at the apartment house, one Smith, and elicited from him testimony that on the day of the accident he was at work at the apartment house from about 6:45 a.m. to 3:30 or 3:45 p.m.; that there was salt in the building for him to use to salt the sidewalks around the apartment house; that there had been snow on the sidewalks before he arrived which had been plowed off by a construction company working nearby; that he cleaned the walks again with a shovel and put salt on them.

On cross-examination Smith was asked why he arrived over an hour earlier than usual that day and responded that it was to clean the sidewalks. He was then asked whether, when he arrived, he had observed “the ³⁹⁰ sidewalks in the rear of the building.” Miss Glover’s lawyer, Mr. Harris, said: “Excuse me, Judge. This is [cross] examination not within the [direct] and I would reserve the right to cross-examination * * *. It is beyond the scope * * Judge Ross treated the remark as an objection and overruled it.

However, Smith did not answer the question and there followed some sixteen questions and answers concerning what Smith’s duties were and what he had done on the day in question, without objection or comment from Mr. Harris, and then Smith was asked where he ate lunch on the day of the accident, which brought about this reaction from Mr. Harris: “Now Judge, this is beyond the direct. If he’s going to make this witness his I would want cross-examination.” There was no ruling or comment by the court and Smith was thereafter asked, and answered, without objection or comment by Mr. Harris, some seventeen questions about the condition of the sidewalks at various hours and about when, from time to time, he had salted them. Mr. Harris then exercised, in effect, the right to “cross” examination he had requested, asking and receiving answers to some thirty-six questions on the subject matter of Smith’s duties, sidewalks and salt and salting. Defendants’ lawyer asked four more questions on recross and Mr. Harris four more on redirect.

At this point both sides seemed