If a person has no reasonable alternative, he is not expected to not use his own property just because he knows of a dangerous condition. Look at Roundtree v. Lerner Development Co., 52 Md. App. 281 (1982). Assumption of the risk will not apply if there is no reasonable alternative. Prosser on Torts suggests that if there is really only one effective choice it is not a choice at all so there is no voluntary assumption of the risk. Another example is where a tenant is injured because of a defective toilet seat, there is no reasonable alternative. See Sacks v. Pleasant, 253 Md. 40, 251 A.2d 858 (1969). Often the defense will try to say that the Plaintiff created the dangerous situation by doing something he should not have done.Maryland Slip and Fall Lawyer

Slip and Fall. The case law in Maryland suggests that in order to prevail on a slip and fall case where liquid has been left on the floor one must prove how long it had been there. It is not as simple as just saying there was liquid on the floor. There must have been sufficient time for the occupier of the property to observe and clean up the liquid. It may not be enough to say the liquid was dirty because there may not be any inferences that can be drawn from mere dirty liquid. If there were footprints in the liquid or other evidence to suggest length of time on the floor, perhaps one could win such a case. One of the important cases in this regard is Manns v. Giant of Maryland, LLC at 871 A. 2d 627, 161 Md. App. 620.