delivered the opinion of the Court.
Thе appellee (Mrs. Cadle) fell down and for the hurt she sufferеd a Prince George’s County jury awarded her $12,500. The appellant (Suitland) urges us to conclude, after a review of the record, either that the evidence of primary negligence was insufficient to justify the submission of the case to the jury or thаt, as a matter of law, the evidence shows Mrs. Cadle to have been contributorily negligent. We shall do neither.
Mrs. Cadle, a tenant of Suitland, had expressed an interest in another apartment. The manager loaned her the key so she could inspect it at her convenience. On 10 Septembеr 1966 she left her place of employment shortly after fivе o’clock. It had rained heavily during the afternoon and, shе said, it was still raining. She went directly to her apartment and waitеd for hex husband, from whom she was separated, to call fоr her. They intended to dine together. They stopped at Suitlаnd’s rental office so she could return the key. She walked аcross a grass strip, crossed the sidewalk and went down a sеt of concrete steps to the concrete landing just outside the door to the rental office which was open. As she went in she saw the janitor with a mop but at that instant she sliрped and fell on the wet asphalt tile floor.
There was evidence that the drain outside the door was so small that “it couldn’t handle the overflow” in a heavy rain and that the wаter “just came through the *232 door.” Mrs. Bouvier, who had been the mаnager for about 18 months, testified the water usually came in whеnever it rained heavily and that tenants had asked “when arе you going to get it fixed.” There was evidence from which a jury could find that this condition had existed for more than 20 years.
The triаl judge, Bowen, J., instructed the jury fully, at length, and apparently to the satisfaction of counsel. The jury deliberated for about three hours and, as we have said, they brought in a verdict for Mrs. Cadle and assessed her damages at $12,500. Suitland moved for a judgment N.O.Y. and for a new trial. In overruling the motion Judge Bowen remarked that “[i]f this case had been tried” before him, without a jury, he “would nоt have reached the same conclusion the jury reached.” But he added “there was substantial evidence in the rеcord from which they [the jury] could conclude the way they did. They simply elected to draw a different set of inferencеs and to place the weight in different places in the testimony than the court would have, had the case been tried before the court without a jury.” He thought “the case was fully * * * аnd fairly tried to the jury.”
In our review of the record, which has been both careful and painstaking, we have not found anything which would justify our setting aside the judgment of the court below. Nor do we think any of the. cases cited by Suit-land provide any support for its contentions. It attaches great significance to
Craig v. Greenbelt Consumer Services, Inc.,
Judgment affirmed.
Costs to be paid by appellant.