Premises Liability

Plaintiff Brings Maryland Injury Claims Against Restaurant for Trip and Fall in Adjacent Lot

June 1, 2021 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In Maryland, the liability of a property owner for a personal injury depends upon the standard of care owed to the injured person. The standard of care, in turn, depends on the person’s status while on the owner’s property. In a March 25, 2021 case, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reviewed a premises liability claim against a restaurant that was brought by one of its patrons.

The plaintiff in the case had dined at the restaurant with her husband and son. Unable to find a parking spot in the restaurant’s designated lot, her husband parked in an adjacent parking lot. The adjacent parking lot belonged to an unrelated limited liability corporation whose tenant had recently vacated the premises. Upon entering the restaurant, the plaintiff testified that they asked the hostess whether they could park in the lot, and she stated “yes, we don’t have any problems” and “everyone does.”

After dining at the restaurant, the plaintiff and her husband headed towards their car. Bypassing the paved portions of the lots and sidewalks, they cut across a grassy area of the property owned by the LLC. After taking a few steps onto the grass area, the plaintiff’s foot landed in a hole that caused her to lose her balance and fall. The plaintiff filed suit against the restaurant, alleging that they knew or should have known of the condition that caused her to fall when she walked across the grassy area. The plaintiff did not file a claim against the owner of the adjacent lot and grassy area.

Maryland Plaintiff Alleges Negligence Claim Against University After Trip and Fall Injury

May 31, 2021 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Business entities may be liable for injuries caused by a dangerous condition on their property. In a March 26, 2021 Maryland personal injury case, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland considered whether an unpainted rollover curb constituted an unreasonable risk to a student. The issue was appealed after the lower court ruled that, as a matter of law, the unpainted curb was not a dangerous condition.

The plaintiff in the case was injured when she tripped on an unpainted rollover curb in the parking lot of a university student center. A rollover curb consists of a gradual incline from street level up to the sidewalk. Some of the curbs on the perimeter of the parking lot were painted yellow to delineate fire lanes, areas in which parking was prohibited to allow access for fire trucks and emergency vehicles. The plaintiff stated that she tripped over an unpainted section of a rollover curb near or adjoining a yellow-painted curb.

The plaintiff brought a negligence action against the university, claiming that it breached its duty to protect against latent, unreasonable risks. The university moved for summary judgment, arguing that it did not breach its duty of care. After the circuit court granted summary judgment for the university, the plaintiff appealed.

Injured Shopper Files Negligence Suit Against Maryland Supermarket

May 26, 2021 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Depending on the circumstances of a Maryland personal injury accident, negligence may be alleged against an employer based on a theory of vicarious liability. In a February 25, 2021 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland considered whether the defendant, a supermarket owner, could be held vicariously liable for injuries allegedly caused by a third-party vendor. The matter came on appeal after the jury found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded her nearly $400,000 in damages.

The plaintiff in the case was injured while shopping at a supermarket owned and operated by the defendant. The injury occurred in the frozen-foods aisle. The plaintiff testified that as she turned to put an item in her basket, she was struck in the back, which caused her to fall to the ground. The plaintiff believed that she was struck by the stock cart of a delivery man whom she had noticed prior to her fall. The man, who was not an employee but a third-party vendor delivering soda products to the supermarket, denied striking the plaintiff.

The plaintiff alleged that the supermarket was liable as a result of negligence based on alternative theories of premises liability and vicarious liability. After the close of evidence at trial, the circuit court granted judgment for the defendant on the issue of premises liability. The remaining issue was submitted to the jury, which found that the defendant was vicariously liable for the negligence of its vendor.

Maryland Plaintiff Sues Bar for Personal Injuries Allegedly Caused by Employee

May 20, 2021 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In some situations, an employer may be liable for a personal injury caused by one of its employees within the scope of their employment. This type of negligence suit is based on a theory of vicarious liability. In a March 3, 2021 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reviewed a case involving an alleged battery that occurred at a bar. The plaintiff claimed that the owner of the bar was liable for her injuries, which she alleged were inflicted by one of its employees. The matter came before the court on an appeal filed by the plaintiff following a jury verdict in favor of the defendant.

The plaintiff in the case was attending a New Year’s Eve party with some friends at a bar operated by the defendant. She had been a customer of the bar for several years and knew many of the employees. One of the people she recognized as an employee approached her and grabbed her arm, causing her to fall to the ground. The plaintiff suffered ankle injuries as a result of the fall.

The plaintiff sued the bar for her injuries, alleging that the person who grabbed her was an employee, agent, or servant of the bar and was acting within the scope and during the course of his employment. The defendant, however, claimed that it had fired the person identified by the plaintiff approximately seven months before the incident. After a three-day trial, the jury determined that the person was an employee of the bar on the date in question, but that his actions were not within the scope of his employment. The jury ultimately found the defendant not liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.

Plaintiffs Proceed with Negligence Lawsuit Arising Out of Slip and Fall at Maryland Restaurant

May 14, 2021 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

To defeat a motion for summary judgment in a personal injury suit, the plaintiff must show sufficient evidence exists to support their claim. In a February 1, 2021 opinion, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland considered a summary judgment motion filed by the defendants in a personal injury case. The plaintiffs in the case brought their Maryland negligence claim in federal court against the owners of a restaurant after allegedly suffering injuries in a slip and fall accident.

The plaintiffs in the case visited a Maryland restaurant known for having peanuts on the floor. Complimentary peanuts were served during all hours of operation, and customers were permitted to discard peanut shells on the floor of the restaurant. While waiting to be seated, the plaintiffs made their way to the restrooms. Before reaching the restroom, the plaintiff fell on the hardwood flooring and landed on her right hip, with her right foot twisted behind her. The plaintiff testified that she had oily stains on the right side of her clothing, leading her to believe that she fell in peanut oil.

In their suit, the plaintiffs claimed that the restaurant was negligent by failing to protect her from a dangerous condition that allegedly caused her injuries. To succeed on their Maryland negligence claim, the plaintiffs must establish: (1) that the defendant was under a duty to protect the plaintiff from injury, (2) that the defendant breached that duty, (3) that the plaintiff suffered actual injury or loss, and (4) that the loss or injury proximately resulted from the defendant’s breach of duty. Insofar as the plaintiff was a business invitee, the restaurant was required to use reasonable care to protect the plaintiff from from injury caused by an unreasonable risk that she would be unlikely to perceive in the exercise of ordinary care for her own safety, and about which the restaurant knows or could have discovered.

Maryland Plaintiffs Assert Wrongful Death Action Against Landlord After Apartment Shootings

May 8, 2021 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Property owners generally have a duty to exercise care to protect invitees from dangerous conditions on the premises. In a January 28, 2021 Maryland wrongful death case, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland explained the circumstances under which a property owner may be held liable for the criminal acts of a third party.

The lawsuit was brought by the estates of two teenagers who were shot and killed by an unknown assailant while standing outside of an apartment building owned by the defendant. Prior to the teens’ deaths, the defendant had known of prior violent crimes occurring outside of the apartment buildings, common areas, and parking areas. The plaintiffs claimed that in light of the history of crime at the apartment complex, the defendant was negligent in failing to take sufficient security measures to protect them from criminal activity at the complex. After the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the plaintiffs appealed.

In a negligence action in Maryland, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the defendant was under a duty to protect the plaintiff from injury, that the defendant breached that duty, and that the plaintiff suffered actual injury or loss as a proximate result of the defendant’s breach of that duty.

Maryland Plaintiff Awarded 1.7 Million Dollar Verdict for Injuries Caused by Lead Paint Exposure

January 19, 2021 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

For young children, lead-based paint exposure can result in long-term injuries. In a December 21, 2020 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reviewed a personal injury case brought by a plaintiff against a property owner. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were negligent in maintaining the property, which caused the plaintiff’s exposure to lead and subsequent injuries related to that exposure. After a jury returned a $1.7 million dollar verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the Maryland personal injury case, the defendants filed the instant appeal.

The plaintiff in the case had lived with his mother and siblings at the defendants’ property from September of 1996 to February of 1998. During his childhood, the plaintiff was tested for the presence of lead in his blood on numerous occasions. After living at the defendants’ property for approximately one year, a blood test revealed that the plaintiff had elevated levels of lead in his blood. The plaintiff sued the defendants after he reached the age of majority, alleging negligence and other claims. The plaintiff succeeded on his negligence claim against the defendants, and the jury awarded him $1,725,936.00 in economic damages.

On appeal, one of the arguments asserted by the defendants was that the trial court erred by improperly allowing evidence of Housing Code violations and instructing the jury that such violations established a prima facie case of negligence. The defendants contended that the evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial.

Plaintiff Files Negligence Suit After Maryland Slip and Fall Injury at Amusement Park

January 18, 2021 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Under Maryland laws, a business owner has a duty to exercise ordinary care to keep their property safe for customers. In turn, each customer has a corresponding duty to exercise care for their own safety. In some negligence cases, the assumption of risk may be a factor in determining the liability of the business owner. In a December 16, 2020 the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland considered whether the jury was properly instructed on the issue of open and obvious dangers and the assumption of risk. The suit was filed by the plaintiff on behalf of her minor son, after he suffered a slip and fall injury at an amusement park operated by the defendant.

The minor in the case was ten years old at the time of the accident. During his visit to the defendant’s amusement park, he was injured after he fell while crossing a wet wooden pedestrian bridge near a water ride. The minor’s mother brought suit, alleging that the defendant allowed water from the ride to accumulate on the wooden walkway, which the defendant knew or should have known created a dangerous slipping hazard. The defendant argued that the wet and slippery condition of the bridge was open and obvious, and therefore, it had no duty to warn or cure the alleged dangerous condition.

After the close of evidence at trial, the defendant requested that the court present its open and obvious defense to the jury on the verdict sheet. The trial court denied the motion, and the jury was asked to determine four issues: whether the defendant was negligent, whether the minor was contributorily negligent, whether the minor had assumed the risk, and damages. The jury ultimately found that the defendant was negligent and awarded $45,000 in damages to the plaintiff.

Maryland Court Orders New Trial in Personal Injury Case Due to Evidentiary Error

December 18, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Generally, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the elements of a Maryland personal injury claim. The evidence used in support of the claim must be admissible under the Maryland Rules of Civil Procedure. In an October 23, 2020 case, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland considered whether the circuit court erred by allowing testimony regarding a defendant’s salary into evidence. The defendants brought the appeal after the jury returned a verdict finding the defendants negligent and awarded the plaintiff 2.2 million dollars in damages.

The plaintiff in the case had resided in property owned by the defendants from his birth until he was two years old. During the plaintiff’s childhood, he was tested three times for the presence of lead in his blood. Two of the tests taken while he was living at the property at issue revealed elevated levels of lead in his blood.

The plaintiff sued the companies that owned and managed the property and the president of the companies, alleging that their negligence in maintaining the property caused his exposure to and subsequent injuries from lead paint. At trial, the president was called to testify. Counsel for the plaintiff asked him to state his highest annual income while working for the defendants. Over objection, the president provided his salary. The plaintiff went on to win the case.

Maryland Plaintiff Alleges Negligence Claim Against Bar Owner After Parking Lot Assault

December 4, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Business owners and property holders may be held responsible for injuries caused by their negligence. In an August 17, 2020 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reviewed a Maryland personal injury case arising out of an assault committed against the plaintiff in the parking lot of a bar owned by the defendant. Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff brought the instant appeal, arguing that the circuit court erred by not allowing him to present evidence of prior similar assaults on the defendant’s property.

The plaintiff in the case was with a friend at the bar and restaurant operated by the defendant. When his friend got into a heated argument with an intoxicated individual, the plaintiff attempted to separate them. The security officers then intervened and escorted the individual outside of the restaurant. Security also asked the plaintiff and his friend to leave. While the plaintiff was walking towards his car, the individual ran across the parking lot and punched him in the head, knocking him unconscious. The plaintiff was left in a coma with a fractured skull and multiple head injuries. The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant, alleging negligence and premises liability claims.

In a negligence case in Maryland, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was under a duty to protect the plaintiff from injury, the defendant breached that duty, the plaintiff suffered an injury, which proximately resulted from the defendant’s breach of duty. In general, a person has no duty to prevent a third party from causing physical harm by criminal acts, absent a special relationship.