Michael Marcley, by His Mother and Next Friend, Elsie R. Marcley, and Elsie R. Marcley, Individually v. H. O. McAlister

D.C. Circuit

Michael Marcley, by His Mother and Next Friend, Elsie R. Marcley, and Elsie R. Marcley, Individually v. H. O. McAlister

218 F.2d 865, 95 U.S. App. D.C. 54

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided January 27, 1955·No. 12136·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Minor plaintiff was injured while playing in an addition being constructed to a school building, located in Bethesda, Maryland. From a verdict and judgment for the defendant, plaintiffs appeal.

We think that the trial court correctly applied the rule in force in Maryland in holding that, under the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff was either a trespasser or, at most, a licensee. This being so, the jury was properly instructed that “defendant owes the duty to refrain from wantonly or willfully causing” minor plaintiff harm and “owes the duty of not exposing plaintiff to hidden perils or dangers which [he] could not avoid by reasonable care on his part.” See Carroll v. Spencer, 204 Md. 387, 104 A.2d 628; State, to Use of Stanfield v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co., 1914, 123 Md. 120, 91 A. 149, 52 L.R.A.,N.S., 1170; Grube v. Mayor, etc., of Baltimore, 1918, 132 Md. 355, 103 A. 948, L.R.A.1918E, 1036; State, to Use of Lease v. Beal-mear, 1925, 149 Md. 10, 130 A. 66; State, to Use of Potter v. Longeley, 1932, 161 Md. 563, 158 A. 6; State, to Use of Alston v. Baltimore Fidelity Warehouse Co., 1939, 176 Md. 341, 4 A.2d 739.

Affirmed.

FAHY, Circuit Judge, dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Minor plaintiff was injured while playing in an addition being constructed to a school building, located in Bethesda, Maryland. From a verdict and judgment for the defendant, plaintiffs appeal.

We think that the trial court correctly applied the rule in force in Maryland in holding that, under the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff was either a trespasser or, at most, a licensee. This being so, the jury was properly instructed that “defendant owes the duty to refrain from wantonly or willfully causing” minor plaintiff harm and “owes the duty of not exposing plaintiff to hidden perils or dangers which [he] could not avoid by reasonable care on his part.” See Carroll v. Spencer, 204 Md. 387, 104 A.2d 628; State, to Use of Stanfield v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co., 1914, 123 Md. 120, 91 A. 149, 52 L.R.A.,N.S., 1170; Grube v. Mayor, etc., of Baltimore, 1918, 132 Md. 355, 103 A. 948, L.R.A.1918E, 1036; State, to Use of Lease v. Beal-mear, 1925, 149 Md. 10, 130 A. 66; State, to Use of Potter v. Longeley, 1932, 161 Md. 563, 158 A. 6; State, to Use of Alston v. Baltimore Fidelity Warehouse Co., 1939, 176 Md. 341, 4 A.2d 739.

Affirmed.

FAHY, Circuit Judge, dissents.

Michael Marcley, by His Mother and Next Friend, Elsie R. Marcley, and Elsie R. Marcley, Individually v. H. O. McAlister, 218 F.2d 865, 95 U.S. App. D.C. 54 (D.C. Cir. 1955).

Pincite

218 F.2d 865 (Michael Marcley, by His Mother and Next Friend, Elsie R. Marcley, and Elsie R. Marcley, Individually v. H. O. McAlister) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related