Preview:

Kathy Bradley v. Hazard Technology Co., Inc. - No. 30, 1995 Term APPEALS FROM DISTRICT COURT -- Unavailability of full transcript does not automatically entitle appellant to a new trial. Appellant must assert specifically what errors occurred and make a diligent effort to reconstruct the missing portion of the record.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 30 September Term, 1995 ___________________________________

KATHY BRADLEY v. HAZARD TECHNOLOGY CO., INC.

___________________________________

Murphy, C.J. Eldridge Rodowsky Chasanow Karwacki Bell Raker JJ. ___________________________________ Opinion by Chasanow, J. ___________________________________ Filed: October 12, 1995

The

question

presented

in

this

case

is

whether

a

party

appealing the judgment of the district court in a civil action is entitled to a new trial when a complete trial transcript is unavailable on appeal due to a failure of the court's recording equipment. We hold that the unavailability of a full transcript

does not automatically entitle a party to a new trial, but that retrial may be appropriate if the appellant can demonstrate that the missing portion of the transcript is relevant to consideration of a specific allegation of error, and that no sufficient

substitute for the missing transcript can be reconstructed.

I. This case grew out of a dispute over certain payments made to the Petitioner, Kathy Bradley, by the Respondent, Hazard Technology Co., Inc. (Hazard). In early 1992, Hazard's president, David

Levinson, hired Ms. Bradley to work as a sales representative for his company. Ms. Bradley was expected to generate sales of

Hazard's industrial health and safety equipment in a territory that included parts of Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and Eastern Pennsylvania. of She was to be paid on a commission basis. In July

1992, Mr. Levinson became dissatisfied with Ms. Bradley's

efforts and terminated the arrangement. Hazard filed suit on April 19, 1993 in the District Court of Maryland sitting in Anne Arundel County seeking to recover

$8,592.88 in payments that Hazard made to Ms. Bradley during the

-2time she worked for the company. Hazard alleged that the payments Ms. work

were "advances" on commissions that Ms. Bradley never earned. Bradley maintained the payments were compensation for

performed.

On May 5, 1994, after a one-day bench trial, the

district court entered judgment in favor of Ms. Bradley. Hazard filed a timely notice of appeal with the clerk of the district court, pursuant to Maryland Rule 7-103(a), and requested that a transcript be prepared for appellate review in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, pursuant to Maryland Code (1974, 1995 Repl. Vol., 1995 Supp.), Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article,

Download Bradley v. Hazard Technology.pdf

Maryland Law