B & K Rentals and Sales Co. v. Universal Leaf Tobacco Co.
Maryland Court of Appeals
596 A.2d 640 (1991)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
B & K Rentals and Sales Company, Inc. (B & K) (plaintiff) rented warehouse space from Universal Leaf Tobacco Company (Universal) (defendant) to store equipment. A warehouse fire killed a Universal employee, Walter Johnson, and destroyed most of B & K’s equipment. Only one other Universal employee, Leonard Grimes, was in the warehouse at the time of the fire. Grimes told a fire investigator what had happened right before the fire, including that Johnson had been using an acetylene torch. B & K sued Universal for negligence. At trial, a different fire investigator testified that Johnson’s torch use had caused the fire. The investigator also testified that he had relied heavily on the reported statements from Grimes to reach this conclusion. The jury awarded B & K approximately $125,000. Universal moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, arguing that the fire investigator’s testimony should have been excluded because it relied primarily on hearsay statements from Grimes. The trial court granted the motion and issued judgment for Universal. The court of special appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. B & K then appealed to the state’s highest court, the Maryland Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Chasanow, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
