Slip and Fall

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 Plaintiff Brings Personal Injury Suit Against HOA After Slipping in Icy Parking Lot

May 14, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In Maryland, a property owner has a duty to keep the premises safe for invitees. The owner may be liable for injuries that occur on their property if they knew or should have known of the danger, and they failed to warn or correct it. In a February 13, 2020 personal injury case, the issue before the court was whether the defendants had actual or constructive notice of an alleged dangerous condition on their parking lot. The plaintiff appealed the matter to the Court of Special Appeals when her Maryland slip and fall case was dismissed on summary judgment.

The plaintiff in the case was walking through the parking lot of her subdivision one evening when she slipped on black ice and fell. As a result of the accident, she suffered a permanent traumatic brain injury. The plaintiff filed a personal injury suit against her homeowner’s association and property manager, claiming that they negligently failed to maintain the parking lot, which resulted in her injury. The lower court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that they did not have notice of the icy condition that caused the plaintiff’s fall.

In Maryland, a landowner has a duty to use reasonable and ordinary care to keep the premises safe for invitees and protect them from injury caused by an unreasonable risk which the invitee would not discover. The plaintiff in the case owned a home in the subdivision, but the common areas and parking lot of the subdivision were under the control of the defendants. Accordingly, the appeals court held that the plaintiff was an invitee while she was on the parking lot, and the defendants owed her a corresponding duty of care to keep the parking lot safe. In order to establish a premises liability claim, however, the plaintiff must show that the defendants knew, or had reason to know of the hazardous condition on the property.

Maryland Court Considers Issue of Causation in Slip and Fall Case Against Restaurant

May 8, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

To establish a negligence claim in Maryland, the plaintiff must show proof of duty, breach, causation, and injury. Causation generally requires evidence that the defendant’s actions caused her injury. In a February 4, 2020 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals reviewed the evidence of causation in a personal injury claim. The issue was brought on appeal by the plaintiff after the lower court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a Maryland slip and fall case.

The plaintiff in the case had filed a legal action against the owners of a seafood restaurant. The plaintiff alleged in her Complaint that she slipped and fell while patronizing the defendants’ restaurant. She asserted that, as a result of the fall, she suffered injuries including chronic neck pain and numbness and pain in her hands. The plaintiff sought damages for her injuries, which she argued were caused by the defendants’ negligence.

Before trial, the defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff could not prove the elements of causation or damages. They pointed out that the plaintiff’s medical records were not certified and did not contain any statements by any of her doctors that her injuries were caused by the slip and fall accident. Nor did the plaintiff have an expert witness to testify as to causation. In addition, the plaintiff did not provide any medical bills for treatment and expenses related to her injuries. The lower court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiff appealed.

Maryland Court Finds City Is Not Liable for Injuries Resulting from Common Sidewalk Defect

January 28, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Maryland trip and fall accidents can cause severe injuries, particularly for elderly individuals. In some instances, an injured person may be able to recover their damages in a personal injury suit. In a January 3, 2020 negligence case, the plaintiff brought suit against the City of Baltimore after falling on a public sidewalk. After the lower court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, the matter was appealed to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

The plaintiff in the case was injured as she was walking along a sidewalk and tripped and fell on an elevated portion of the sidewalk. The plaintiff suffered serious personal injuries to her face and mouth as a result of the fall and incurred over $15,000 in medical expenses, including orthodontic surgery to repair damage to her teeth. She was 80 years old at the time of the injury.

In her suit, the plaintiff alleged that the City negligently attempted to repair the sidewalk, and as a result, the sidewalk was uneven. The City argued that the sidewalk defect was so slight, that it was non-actionable under the triviality doctrine. The City also argued that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence that it had notice of the defect before the plaintiff’s accident.

Court Rules City Is Not Required to Inspect Park Benches for Damage in Maryland Premises Liability Case

January 27, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

To survive a summary judgment motion, the plaintiff must show that there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury could find in her favor. In a December 26, 2019 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals reviewed a personal injury claim against the City of Baltimore (City) to determine whether the lower court erred in granting summary judgment against the plaintiff. The plaintiff in the case alleged that she was sitting on a public bench when it collapsed underneath her. She filed a personal injury suit against the City, claiming that was injured as a result of its negligence in maintaining the bench.

To succeed on a negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove that the City was under a duty to protect her from injury; that the City breached that duty; that the plaintiff suffered actual injury or loss; and causation. Because the plaintiff’s claims were based on premises liability, she must also prove that a dangerous condition existed, and that the City had constructive or actual knowledge of the risk of danger.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the City was under a duty to inspect the bench, and by failing to do so, the City breached its duty to her. To establish the element of duty, the plaintiff pointed to the website of the bench manufacturer, which recommended that the connections on the bench be checked and tightened at least every six months. The appeals court held, however, that the manufacturer’s recommendations, alone, were not sufficient to establish that the City had a duty to inspect the bench regularly. Further, it did not prove that failing to inspect the bench for loose bolts would constitute negligence.

Maryland Court Reviews Negligence Claim Against Grocery Store for Injury Caused by Falling Jars

January 21, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Grocery stores and many other businesses have a duty to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable dangers. If a store breaches its duty, it may be held liable in a Maryland premises liability claim for an injury caused by its negligence. In a November 5, 2019 personal injury case, the plaintiff sued a grocery store for an injury involving one of its displays. When the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

The defendant’s store is marketed as a cost-effective approach to grocery shopping. Rather than placing items on shelves for display, open shipping boxes are stacked on the floor or placed on wide shelves with other opened and unopened boxes. Customers often take shipping boxes to use to carry their purchases, as the store does not provide bags. The plaintiff in the case was standing in a check-out aisle of the defendant’s store, which was lined with stacked and open shipping boxes. The plaintiff alleged that two glass jars fell from a display and smashed into the floor next to his feet. Startled, the plaintiff jumped, causing him to twist his right leg and tear a muscle.

To assert a successful negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove the elements of duty, breach, injury, and causation. In Maryland, businesses such as the defendant have a duty to warn customers of known hidden dangers, a duty to inspect the premises for dangers, and a duty to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable dangers. This duty applies to dangers and unsafe conditions created by the business, as well as dangers that may be caused by the negligent acts of its employees or other customers, where the business should have anticipated the possible occurrence and results of those acts.

Maryland Plaintiff Files Negligence Suit After Slip and Fall on Resurfaced Parking Lot

January 14, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In Maryland, landlords and other property owners owe a duty of care to their tenants and guests, and may be liable for injuries caused by their negligence. In an October 24, 2019 case, a plaintiff brought a Maryland personal injury negligence claim against the manager of her apartment complex and a paving contractor after she slipped and fell on a resurfaced asphalt parking lot. The case went to trial. After the close of the plaintiff’s case, the trial court granted judgment for the defendants on grounds of insufficient evidence of negligence of the defendants and assumption of the risk by the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed the decision, and the matter came before the Court of Special Appeals.

The plaintiff in the case had moved her car to a nearby shopping center due to repaving work being done to the parking lot of her apartment complex. She went to retrieve her car that afternoon and, seeing that the lot was still blocked off, parked on a nearby street. She began walking on a sidewalk back to her apartment building. Instead of continuing on that route, the plaintiff stepped on the parking lot to test its condition and found that it was firm. As she continued to walk across the parking lot, she reportedly slipped on a soft spot and fell on her right arm, injuring her back and head.

In Maryland, the owner or possessor of land may be liable for injuries to invitees by a condition on the land if they: (1) know or should realize that the condition involves an unreasonable risk of harm to the invitee, (2) should expect that the invitee will not discover or realize the danger or will fail to protect against it, and (3) fails to exercise reasonable care to protect the invitee against the danger.

Maryland Plaintiff Seeks Relief on Appeal After Water Meter Injury

January 9, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Bringing a Maryland negligence claim after an injury may involve specific legal procedures. A Maryland accident lawyer can guide you through the proceedings and ensure that the correct steps are taken. In a September 16, 2019 case, the plaintiff attempted to file a claim against the City for injuries suffered as the result of a collapsed temporary water meter. The issue for the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland was whether proper notice was given to the defendants.

The plaintiff in the case was walking on the sidewalk when he reportedly stepped onto a temporary water meter cover. The cover, made of wood, collapsed under the plaintiff, causing him to fall and injure his left leg. In September of 2015, the plaintiff attempted to give notice of his injury to the City by letter, pursuant to the Local Government Tort Claims Act (LGTCA). The letter, however, was not sent via certified mail, return receipt requested, as required by the local rules. The letter was ultimately delivered to an unknown address instead of to the City.

In February of 2018, the plaintiff filed a negligence suit against the City and mayor in the circuit court. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiff failed to provide timely notice as required under the LGTCA. After a hearing on the issue, the circuit court granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiff appealed the issue, arguing that he had substantially complied with the notice requirements.

Maryland Court Examines Effect of Plaintiff’s Negligence in Personal Injury Case

December 22, 2019 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

To succeed on a Maryland negligence claim, the plaintiff must establish each elements of the cause of action. In addition, the plaintiff may have to address the theories of defense offered by the defendant. In an April 17, 2019 case, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland examined the issue of contributory negligence in a Maryland personal injury action. The matter was on appeal after a lower court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims on summary judgment.

The plaintiff in the case was injured when he fell into a pothole. The injury occurred as the plaintiff was walking to a convenience store at night. In order to avoid debris blocking the sidewalk from a recent fire, the plaintiff crossed into the street. As he was walking, his left foot went into a pothole and he fell, injuring his finger. Due to the severity of the injury, the plaintiff’s finger was amputated.

The plaintiff filed a negligence action against the property owner, alleging that it was negligent in failing to divert people from the area of pavement that created a hazardous condition, and in failing to properly maintain the property or warn pedestrians of the dangerous condition. The defendant argued that the plaintiff was negligent in failing to keep a look out while walking, and as such, could not succeed on his claim against the defendant.

Maryland Plaintiff Pursues Personal Injury Claim Against City for Water Meter Injury

March 19, 2019 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Holding a local government or municipality liable for negligence may be difficult in some cases. A Maryland injury attorney can assist plaintiffs by presenting the evidence persuasively to a judge or jury. In a December 19, 2018 case, the plaintiff filed a Maryland injury claim against the city counsel, local government, and an excavation company following an accident involving a water meter. The case was brought before the Court of Special Appeals after the trial court granted summary judgment against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff in the case alleged that she was injured when a water meter cover opened and she stepped into the hole. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that they had no notice of the allegedly defective water meter lid, nor did they have any duty to inspect in the absence of notice. The plaintiff contended that the defendants had notice because the excavation company was working in the area to repair water leaks. She also provided a letter from the city informing the company of the plaintiff’s suit. The letter contained a handwritten note to “take notice lid is broke” with a date.

In a Maryland negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove that: (1) the defendant was under a duty to protect the plaintiff from injury, (2) the defendant breached that duty, (3) the plaintiff suffered injury or loss, and (4) the injury proximately resulted from the defendant’s breach of duty.