The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recently ruled on an appeal in a personal injury case that was halted after the court granted a motion for judgment for the defendant at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence at trial. In Bright v. Warehouse Servs., Inc. (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Mar. 28, 2016), the plaintiff was injured while working as a forklift operator in a warehouse operated by the defendant. The plaintiff brought a premises liability action against the defendant, alleging that a defect in a loading ramp caused his forklift to drop, jolting him and resulting in a serious back injury.
The case went to trial. The plaintiff was the only witness to testify about the condition of the defendant’s loading dock. He presented testimony from two medical experts to discuss his damages, although they could not explain what caused the jolt that the plaintiff contended caused his injuries. No witness examined the ramp after the accident to investigate whether it was defective, dangerous, or in need of repair. At the close of evidence, the defendant moved for judgment pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-519. The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant knew of the defect and had the opportunity, if there was a defect, to fix it.
To prove a negligence claim in Maryland, a 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 actual injury or loss, and that loss or injury proximately resulted from the defendant’s breach of the duty. Under premises liability law, the duty of care that is owed by the owner of property to one who enters on the property depends upon the entrant’s legal status. Ordinarily, one entering onto the property of another will occupy the status of invitee, licensee by invitation, bare licensee, or trespasser. An invitee is a person on the property for a purpose related to the owner’s business, and is owed a duty of ordinary care to keep the property safe. In Bright, it was undisputed that the plaintiff was a business invitee.