The facts of Allen v. Marriott are as follows:
David Allen and his wife were guests of a Marriott hotel from Feb. 3 -5. On the morning of Feb. 5, the parties checked out of the hotel. Mrs. Allen went to the hotel’s parking lot to retrieve their car, while Mr. Allen was checking out. She drove the car close to the front entrance of the hotel. Mr. Allen walked out of the main entrance, and then proceeded to walk along the (salted) sidewalk toward their vehicle. As Mr. Allen stepped off of the curb, pulling a wheelie suitcase, he slipped and fell on what turned out to be unseen “black ice.”
The issue the presented to the Court was whether a reasonable person under an objective standard, knowing what the Plaintiff knew, would have been aware of the risk and therefore assumed the risk.
In reaching its holding, the Court discussed the following:
The Maryland law on the defense of assumption of risk in cases involving slipping and falling on ice or snow is totally contained within the three decisions of Schroyer v. McNeal, ADM Partnership v. Martin, and Morgan State Univ. v. Walker. In all three cases, the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs, as a matter of law, were aware of and voluntarily assumed the risk, based on the circumstantial evidence of their surroundings.
• In Schroyer, the plaintiff injured herself when she walked out onto a parking lot covered with ice and snow. She was aware that ice and snow were slippery, and therefore was aware of the danger posed by an ice and snow covered parking lot. By voluntarily choosing to traverse it, albeit carefully, she intentionally exposed herself to a known risk.
• In ADM, the plaintiff was injured when she slipped and fell on an ice and snow-covered walkway as she returned to her vehicle. The Court of Appeals said that, although it had snowed some 19 hours earlier and the precipitation had ceased, ice and snow surrounded the building, particularly the parking lot directly in front of the building and the entrance walkway. The plaintiff was aware of the ice and unplowed snow surrounding the building, but she felt that she could safely enter the building. The Court stated that “there are certain risks which anyone of adult age must be taken to appreciate: the danger of slipping on ice” is one of them. A person of normal intelligence would have understood the danger, therefore the issue is for the court.
• In Morgan State, the plaintiff went to visit her daughter on the campus of MSU several days after a heavy snowstorm. After driving across a snow and ice-covered parking lot, the plaintiff walked across the ice, fell, and fractured her leg. The Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff “knowingly and voluntarily walked across a snow and ice covered parking lot and injured herself, she assumed the risk of her injuries as a matter of law.” The Court reiterated that the danger of slipping on ice is one of the risks which any one of adult age must be taken to appreciate.
Marriott argued to the Court that that knowledge springs not only from direct sense perception, but from the drawing of inferences from circumstantial evidence. The facts relied on by Marriott are not limited to the observations on the morning of the accident:
• When the Plaintiff and his wife arrived at the hotel on Feb. 3, they saw snow and ice in the parking lot. When driving on that parking lot they encountered slippery conditions.
• On Feb. 4, the Plaintiff also saw snow and ice on the premises of the hotel.
• The Plaintiff had a general familiarity with the phenomenon of “black ice.” He
acknowledged the possibility of “black ice” forming on the premises, as he was aware of the danger of melting and refreezing.
• The Plaintiff acknowledge that most of the snow and ice started melting, and that he was sure the temperature dropped to below freezing at some point.
• On the morning of the fall, appellant had reason to believe the sidewalk was salted or otherwise treated, but he had no reason to believe that the parking lot itself had been treated.
• There was visible ice (white ice), “right up as soon as you stepped off of the sidewalk” and the parking lot was slippery for his vehicle the day before.
The Court stated that when the bits and pieces of information about the appellant’s awareness of risk came together, they were enough, objectively, to achieve critical mass. To assume a risk as a matter of law, a plaintiff, objectively speaking, must have reason to know of the risk (slipping on ice). The required knowledge is not knowledge that ice is actually present. It is the appreciation of the reasonable likelihood that, under the weather conditions and other circumstances, ice might well be present. The assumed risk is not that of stepping on ice per se. The assumed risk is that of stepping onto an unknown surface with an awareness that it might well be icy.
The Court's Holding:
The Plaintiff assumed the risk when he voluntarily ventured away from the main entrance and into the parking lot, because objectively, a reasonable person appreciates the likelihood that, under these weather conditions and other circumstances, ice might be present, even though it is not visible.
As a result, the Plaintiff is completely barred from making any recovery. Unfortunately, many Marylanders are seriously injured when falling on ice. This case makes a recovery very difficult and further demonstrates the necessity for victims to hire a lawyer who understands the law, the issues, and comes up with a well thought-out path to recovery at the onset of the case.
For further information, please contact us for a complimentary consultation.
]]>As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland lawyer, I have successfully handled prior drowning deaths in septic tanks or similar sewage facilities. Because of the well-known hazard that these tanks/facilities pose to small children, there are clear standards and safety features that have been adopted by a variety of professional organizations, standards/features that are designed to prevent these types of tragedies. Unfortunately, due to the large number of these older tanks that remain unmarked and/or unidentified on individuals' properties, these preventable tragedies continue to this day. If a loved one has been injured or died as a result of a similar tragedy, call the lawyers at STSW for a free consultation.
]]>Below is our internal memo which outlines the process:
(1) File complaint with The Greater Baltimore Board of REALTORS (GBBR) for violating Code of Ethics
a. If found to be in violation of Code of Ethics – REALTOR may be subject to a fine, suspension of membership or expulsion from the association
i. Must cite which section of Code of Ethics they violated
b. Claim = per incident
i. CANNOT process claims for monetary damages
ii. If legal action has been filed with Courts, CANNOT consider any complaint filed with GBBR until legal action has been resolved
iii. Complaint must be filed 180 days after facts were known
iv. Individual complaint being filed against must be member of GBBR
c. Copies of application to file complaint and information from website is attached
(2) File complaint with Maryland Real Estate Commission
a. Only accepts complaints against individuals with real estate licenses
b. Claims brought for violation of Title 17 of Business & Professions Article
i. Claim = per incident
ii. May recover compensation from Guaranty Fund for an actual loss
1. May not exceed $25,000 per claim
2. Claim must (1) be based on an act or omission of licensed real estate broker/sales person; (2) involve transaction that relates to real estate in MD; and (3) is based on an act or mission in which money or property is obtained by theft, embezzlement, false pretenses or forgery; or constitutes fraud or misrepresentation
c. If found to be in violation, sanctions include – license revoked, required to pay a fine, license suspended, reprimands
i. Copies of application to file complaint and information from website is attached
ii. Examples of violations & penalties imposed; complaints which were denied; and complaints which were awarded funds from the Guaranty Fund are attached
Facts: Four friends boarded a boat and traveled to a bar. After consuming a variety of alcoholic drinks, the friends returned to the boat and headed back to the marina. On the way back, the conditions worsened (wind increased, water was choppy, and it was dark). While traversing the Chesapeake Bay, the captain (one of the four friends), abruptly throttled back, thereby slowing the boat, but did not anchor. The captain announced that he wanted to take a swim, and dove into the Bay, jumping from the seat at the helm. Then, one of the four friends, Ms. Matthews, either fell or jumped into the water. Rescue attempts by the friends failed. The US Coast Guard and a helicopter could not locate Ms. Matthews. Two days later, Ms. Matthews’ fully clothed body was found. Cause of death was drowning.
Analysis:
• (1) Navigable waters of the US
-Parties do not, and cannot dispute, that the Chesapeake Bay is a navigable waterway of the US
• (2) Whether the incident caused a potential hazard to maritime commerce -
-Boat was stopped in the middle of a major shipping waterway
-Boat remained adrift during rescue efforts
-The parties remained adrift in the area while search parties arrived
-Search parties spent a great amount of time scouring the area of the navigable waterways for Ms. Matthews
-No evidence of disruption of maritime commerce, but travel by any other vessel through that portion of the Bay would have been restricted by the search effort
• Whether the actions surrounding the incident bore a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity -
-Does not matter that the parties were not engaged in commercial shipping at the time
-Under certain circumstances, the act of diving from a boat could bear a relationship to maritime activity
-Unclear whether Ms. Matthews actually dove from the boat or fell into the water
-Search effort by the Coast Guard is a traditional maritime activity
-Broader view of “traditional maritime activity” – captain’s actions are lack of proper navigation; failure to manage, direct, and position his vessel properly
+Captain navigated the boat by stopping it and leaving it adrift in a major navigable waterway prior to diving from the boat
+He abandoned the helm without taking the proper precautions that maritime law requires
+Failed to assist in the rescue of a woman overboard from his vessel
Holding: Maritime law applies to the facts and allegations of this case.
For more information on whether Maritime Law applies to a Maryland personal injury matter, please contact us for a complimentary consultation.
]]> ]]>Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249 (1972): A plane taking off from a runway hit a flock of birds, lost engine power, and crashed into Lake Erie, sinking to its bottom. The plaintiffs sought damages under traditional maritime jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that, for maritime law to be applicable, a court must find, not only that the action accrued upon or in navigable waters, but that the incident alleged in the claim bears a “significant relationship to traditional maritime activity.”
Foremost Insurance Co. v. Richardson, 457 U.S. 668 (1982): Two pleasure boats collided, resulting in the death of a passenger in one of the boats. The Supreme Court held that the collision was actionable under maritime jurisdiction because there is no requirement that maritime activity be an exclusively commercial one. All operations of vessels on navigable waters are subject to uniform rules of conduct. The Court held that “[b]ecause the ‘wrong’ here involves the negligent operation of a vessel on navigable waters . . . it has a sufficient nexus to traditional maritime activity to sustain admiralty jurisdiction.”
With respect to the “potential hazard” element, a court must assess the general features of the type of incident involved to determine whether such an incident is likely to disrupt commercial activity. In this case – a fire on a vessel docked at a marina on navigable waters – plainly satisfies the requirement of potential disruption to commercial maritime activity.
With respect to the second element, the Court stated that “activity” is defined not by the particular circumstances of the incident, but by the general conduct from which the incident arose. The relevant activity in this case was the storage and maintenance of a vessel at a marina on navigable waters. The need for uniform rules of maritime conduct and liability is not limited to navigation, but extends at least to any other activities traditionally undertaken by vessels, commercial or noncommercial.
Thus, the Supreme Court recognized that “examining an incident for the purposes of maritime jurisdiction is not to be done by subjecting the minutia of a case to the ‘potential hazard’ and ‘traditional maritime activity’ tests; rather, the ‘general’ aspects of the case are to be reviewed under the two prongs.” Matthews v. Howell, 359 Md. 152, 167, 753 A.2d 69, 77 (2000) (referencing Foremost Insurance and Sisson). Those tests are to be defined somewhat liberally. Id. A “potential hazard” may be hypothetical, but not fantastical. Id. A “traditional maritime activity” may include any maritime related activity, not just marine navigation. Id.
Summary of the Elements:
• Navigable waters of the United States (locality)
• Whether the incident caused a potential hazard to maritime commerce
• Whether the actions surrounding the incident bore a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity
For more information on the applicability of Maritime law to personal injury matters, please contact us for a complimentary consultation.
]]>Police say they will release the victim's identification after the family is notified.
Anyone with information on the driver or the location of the vehicle is asked to call 410-307-2020 or Metro Crime Stoppers at 1-866-756-2587.
]]>A. Contributory Negligence
Maryland recognizes the defense of contributory negligence as a complete bar to a plaintiff’s recovery. In order to succeed in asserting this defense, the driver of a vehicle that strikes a cyclist would have to show that the bicyclist deviated from the standard of ordinary care. Usually questions of contributory negligence in Maryland are resolved by the jury. To justify withdrawal of a case from the jury on grounds of contributory negligence, “the evidence must show an act so decisively negligent as to leave no room for difference of opinion thereon by reasonable minds.” Heffner, 196 Md. At 473, 77 A.2d at 131.
Factors a jury might consider in deciding whether a bicyclist exercised reasonable care may include precautions that a reasonable bicyclist would have taken under similar circumstances. Though not codified by Maryland law, published safety guidelines may be relevant to an examination of whether a bicyclist exercised ordinary care. The League of American Bicyclists suggests that bicyclists wear reflective or brightly colored clothing and that they yield to traffic in the same destination lane.
B. Assumption of the Risk
In Maryland, an assertion of the defense of assumption of the risk requires a showing that (1) the plaintiff had knowledge of the risk of the danger, (2) the plaintiff appreciated that risk, and (3) the plaintiff voluntarily confronted the risk of danger. Piquette v. Stevens, 128 Md. App. 590, 739 A.2d 905 (1999). Whether a plaintiff has assumed the risk is generally a question for the jury, unless it is clear that the plaintiff must have understood the danger, and then it is determined by the court. Id. at 599. In Piquette v. Stevens, the Court of Special Appeals reversed a determination by the trial court that a bicyclist had assumed the risk of colliding with a motor vehicle by failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. Id. at 600. The bicyclist was aware of an approaching vehicle, but chose to roll through a stop sign and turn to the right. Id. at 600. The court reasoned that “it was not clear that [the bicyclist], certainly a person of normal intelligence, would have anticipated the risk of danger.” Id.
]]> For more information on the the rights of injured bicyclists in Maryland, please contact me for a complimentary consultation.]]>A. Contributory Negligence
Maryland recognizes the defense of contributory negligence as a complete bar to a plaintiff’s recovery. In order to succeed in asserting this defense, the driver of a vehicle that strikes a cyclist would have to show that the bicyclist deviated from the standard of ordinary care. Usually questions of contributory negligence in Maryland are resolved by the jury. To justify withdrawal of a case from the jury on grounds of contributory negligence, “the evidence must show an act so decisively negligent as to leave no room for difference of opinion thereon by reasonable minds.” Heffner, 196 Md. At 473, 77 A.2d at 131.
Factors a jury might consider in deciding whether a bicyclist exercised reasonable care may include precautions that a reasonable bicyclist would have taken under similar circumstances. Though not codified by Maryland law, published safety guidelines may be relevant to an examination of whether a bicyclist exercised ordinary care. The League of American Bicyclists suggests that bicyclists wear reflective or brightly colored clothing and that they yield to traffic in the same destination lane.
B. Assumption of the Risk
In Maryland, an assertion of the defense of assumption of the risk requires a showing that (1) the plaintiff had knowledge of the risk of the danger, (2) the plaintiff appreciated that risk, and (3) the plaintiff voluntarily confronted the risk of danger. Piquette v. Stevens, 128 Md. App. 590, 739 A.2d 905 (1999). Whether a plaintiff has assumed the risk is generally a question for the jury, unless it is clear that the plaintiff must have understood the danger, and then it is determined by the court. Id. at 599. In Piquette v. Stevens, the Court of Special Appeals reversed a determination by the trial court that a bicyclist had assumed the risk of colliding with a motor vehicle by failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. Id. at 600. The bicyclist was aware of an approaching vehicle, but chose to roll through a stop sign and turn to the right. Id. at 600. The court reasoned that “it was not clear that [the bicyclist], certainly a person of normal intelligence, would have anticipated the risk of danger.” Id.
]]> For more information on the the rights of injured bicyclists in Maryland, please contact me for a complimentary consultation.]]>• Drivers of Vehicles:
- Drivers may assume that other drivers will obey the rules of the road and need not anticipate that others will violate the law. Dean v. Redmiles.
- Drivers of motor vehicles owe a duty to exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicycle ridden by a person. Md. Transp. Art. §21-1209.
- Drivers must exercise greater vigilance when approaching an intersection. Heffner v. Admiral Taxi Service, Inc.
- Drivers approaching a circular green signal, when turning right or left, shall yield right of way to any other vehicle lawfully within the intersection when the signal is shown. Md. Transp. Art. §21-202.
• Turns:
- A person may not turn a vehicle from a direct course on a roadway unless the movement can be made with reasonable safety. Md. Transp. Art. §21-604(b).
- One who operates a motor vehicle on a public highway must anticipate the presence of others thereon and must exercise constant vigilance to avoid injuring them. Peoples Drug Stores v. Windham
- A motorist may not, if any other vehicle might be affected by the movement, turn a vehicle without giving a proper signal. Md. Transp. Art. §21-604(c).
- A signal of an intention to turn must be given continuously during at least the last 100 feet traveled by a vehicle before turning. Md. Transp. Art. §21-604(d).
- A driver shall make a right turn as closely as practicable to the right –hand curb of the roadway. Md. Transp. Art. §21-601(a). This requirement is intended to provide further indication of an intent to turn so that the motorist will not be passed on the right. Norris v. Wolfensberger
- Vehicles of greater than average size do not enjoy any additional rights. Drivers of trucks, having knowledge of their increased width and length, owe a duty to other drivers on the roadway to take these elements into consideration in the operation of their vehicles. York Manor Express Co. v. State for use of Hawk.
I. Rules of the Road, Duty & Standard of Care
The Maryland Transportation Article codifies the “Rules of the Road” for all vehicles traveling on Maryland roadways. All drivers of vehicles in Maryland must observe the rules of the road. Md. Transp. Art. §21-102. They may also assume that others will obey the rules of the road and need not anticipate that others will violate the law. Dean v. Redmiles, 208 Md. 137, 374 A.2d 329 (1977). Pursuant to Md. Transp. Art. §21-1202, the operator of a bicycle on a public street possesses all the rights and duties of the driver of a vehicle. These general duties include the duty to operate a bicycle, or any vehicle, with ordinary care under the circumstances. Kaffl v. Moran, 233 Md. 473, 477-478, 197 A.2d 240, 242 (1964). In addition, there are unique rules of the road that apply particularly to the operation of bicycles. Drivers of motor vehicles owe a duty to bicyclists to exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicycle being ridden by a person. Md. Transp. Art. §21-1209. Bicycle operators must to ride as close to the right side of the road as practicable, except when turning left, traveling on a one way street, or passing a slower moving vehicle. Md. Transp. Art. §21-1205. Operation of a bicycle in violation of a statute does not constitute negligence as a matter of law, unless the violation is the proximate cause of injury. Miles v. State, 174 Md. 292, 198 A. 724 (1938).
Operators of any type of vehicle on Maryland roadways owe a duty to exercise due care under the circumstances. Moran, 233 Md. 473 at 477-478, 197 A.2d 240 at 242 . While ordinary care is generally required, the Court of Appeals has held that “vigilance must vary according to the danger naturally anticipated from the operation of the vehicle.” Heffner v. Admiral Taxi Service, Inc., 196 Md. 465, 471, 77 A.2d 127, 129 (1950). It is universally understood by travelers on the roadway that intersections create an increased potential for collisions. In anticipation of this known danger, a higher degree of caution is appropriate. The Court opined that “a motorist, when approaching a street intersection, must exercise much greater vigilance than when he is driving between intersections.” Id.
The Maryland Transportation Article also includes provisions that pertain to specific traffic maneuvers. Regarding turns, “a person may not, if any other vehicle might be affected by the movement, turn a vehicle until he gives an appropriate signal in the manner required.” Md. Transp. Art. §21-604(c). A signal of an intention to turn must be given continuously during at least the last 100 feet traveled by a vehicle before turning. Md. Transp. Art. §21-604(d). In addition to signaling, “if the driver of a vehicle intends to turn right at any intersection, he shall approach the intersection and make the right turn as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.” Md. Transp. Art. §21-601(a). The requirement that drivers of motor vehicles drive close to the edge of the roadway when approaching a right turn is intended to provide further indication to following drivers of an impending turn, so that the turning motorist will not be passed by following vehicles on the side toward which an indication of turning has been given. Norris v. Wolfensberger, 248 Md. 635, 237 A.2d 757 (1968).
In addition to the duty to properly signal an intended turn, drivers owe a duty not to make a turn from a direct course until such turn can be made with reasonable safety. Md. Transp. Art. §21-604(b). Before turning, drivers must keep a proper lookout. As noted by the Court of Appeals, “[o]ne who operates a motor vehicle on a public highway must anticipate the presence of others thereon and must exercise constant vigilance to avoid injuring them…” Peoples Drug Stores v. Windham, 178 Md. 172, 185, 12 A.2d 532, 538 (1940). A well established rule is that when a witness says he looked but did not see an object which he must have seen if he did look, such testimony is unworthy of consideration. Cogswell v. Frazier, 183 Md. 654, 660, 39 A.2d 815, 818 (1944).
For additional information on cyclist's rights in Maryland, please contact me for a complimentary consultation.
]]>Thursday's accident was an unfortunate mix of circumstances with a tragic ending. Had their been a dedicated left turn lane perhaps this accident could have been avoided. If Mr. Cory had been paying more attention to the traffic in front of him, this accident might have been avoided. Currently there are no charges pending, however State Police Officials are still investigating.
An experienced Maryland Accident attorney can help accident victims recover from all liable parties in an accident. If you or someone you know has been injured in an accident, contact the personal injury experts at 410-385-225 or czissel@mdattorney.com
]]>