Silberg v. Klawans

PIsnderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. 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 contend, 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 and cases cited, there was no legally sufficient evidence to take the case to the jury, and their de ³² murrer 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. Silberg was wearing high heeled, strapless pumps at the time of the accident, the heels being some three inches high, and ⅜’s of an inch in diameter at the base or lift. 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 covering 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