Opinion
[No. 195, September Term, 1958.]
Decided April 14, 1959.
NEGLIGENCE — Flare Pot Put Out by Baltimore City to Warn of Danger — Child's Clothing Catching Fire — Allegations Did Not Show Negligence — Attractive Nuisance Doctrine Not Accepted. Where the City of Baltimore put out a flare pot to warn of danger on account of construction work in a street near an intersection in a populous residential area, and a child's clothing caught fire from the pot, in an action by the child and her parents against the City for alleged negligence, the City's demurrer was properly sustained, the allegations of the declaration being insufficient to show that the use of the flare pot was of itself negligent. While the plaintiffs disclaimed reliance upon the doctrine of attractive nuisance, which this State does not accept, the Court stated that their allegations smacked strongly of that doctrine. p. 478
J.E.B.
Decided April 14, 1959.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore City (MASON, J.).
Action by Ruth Ritter, infant plaintiff, by Ellwood Ritter and Ruth Ritter, Sr., her parents, and by the parents in their own right, against the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, for alleged negligence. The trial court sustained the City's demurrer, and from a judgment in its favor, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed, with costs.
The cause was argued before BRUNE, C.J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
Stanley Sollins, with whom was Fred E. Weisgal on the brief, for the appellants.
Paul A. Dorf, Assistant City Solicitor of Baltimore, with whom were Hugo A. Ricciuti, City Solicitor, and F. Clifford Hane, Deputy City Solicitor, on the brief, for the appellee.
A child's clothing caught fire from a flare pot put out by the defendant city as a warning of danger on account of construction work in one street near its intersection with another in a populous residential area. The child and her parents sued the city for alleged negligence, the city's demurrer was sustained and the plaintiffs appeal.
We think that this case is governed by Conrad v. City of Takoma Park, 208 Md. 363, 118 A.2d 497, which is very similar on its facts. The plaintiffs' allegations in the instant case are more specific than those in the Conrad case, but we do not think that they differ materially from what was stated to be the substance of the allegations in that case. The more detailed allegations in the instant case smack strongly of the doctrine of attractive nuisance. Though the appellants disclaim reliance on that doctrine, their principal authorities appear to be founded upon it. That doctrine is not accepted in this State ( Conrad v. City of Takoma Park, supra; State v. Baltimore Fidelity Warehouse Co., 176 Md. 341, 4 A.2d 739). We think that here, as in the Conrad case, the allegations are insufficient to show the use of flare pots was of itself negligent.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.