Damien A. Macias v. Summit
Management, November
21, 2019 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland)
Maryland Courts have traditionally imposed a legal duty on
landlords to inspect, maintain, and keep safe the common areas of their
properties for the benefit of invitees and social guests. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals expanded
that duty to condominium associations in a recently published opinion in Damian
A. Macias v. Summit Management Inc.
This issue giving rise to the case originated on July 6, 2013 when
eight-year-old Damien Macias (“Damien”) accompanied his mother and two younger
siblings to the Waters House Condominium complex (“Waters House”), which was
managed by Summit Management (“Summit”) (collectively, the “Condominium”), to
visit his grandparents who owned a unit at Waters House. While playing outside on the grounds of
Waters House, Damien and his brother climbed on top of a community sign made of
large stones. While dismounting from the
community sign, one of the large stones dislodged. Damien fell to the ground and the stone fell
on top of Damien, causing him serious injuries.
There was no sign or fencing surrounding the community sign indicating
that it was off-limits.
Damien sued asserting negligence claims against the Condominium. The Condominium filed a motion for summary judgment
arguing, in part, that Damien’s legal status was that of a trespasser and was
owed no duty except to refrain from “willful or wanton misconduct and
entrapment.” Damien countered arguing
that he was an invitee because the community sign was located in the common
area of the complex, and was therefore owed a duty by the Condominium to use
reasonable care to ensure the sign was safe.
The trial court ruled Damien was a bare licensee (i.e., here,
that Damien was only owed the same duties as a trespasser), but that even if
Damien was an invitee, there was no evidence that the Condominium was on notice
of the unsafe condition giving rise to Damien’s injuries. Damien appealed to the Maryland Court of
Special Appeals, asking the appellate court to find that Damien was an invitee
when he played on the community sign and, therefore, owed a duty of care by the
Condominium.
After looking to other states’ precedents on the issue and
applying the Maryland landlord-tenant premises liability paradigm, the Court of
Special Appeals held that condominium associations owe condominium owners and
their social guests the same duty of care landlords owe to their tenants and
social guests. This holding was
accompanied by a caveat, namely that condominium association may avoid
liability in a negligence action by including an appropriate exculpatory clause
in their condominium agreement.
The Court of Special Appeals also considered whether Damien’s legal
status changed from an invitee to a trespasser when he climbed onto the
community sign. The Condominium argued
that Damien lost his legal status as an invitee because there was nothing about
the community sign that suggested, implied, or induced Damien (or the general
public) into thinking that children may play on or climb the community
sign. The Court of Special Appeals
disagreed, pointing to the fact that there was no evidence that the Condominium
placed any signage, fencing, or other limits on which children could play in
the common areas, which included the community sign. The appellate court also dismissed the
argument that the act of climbing a climbable object transformed Damien’s legal
status, opining that it is conceivable that children, such as Damien, would
climb a stone sign that blends naturally into the grounds of the common areas
of the complex.
Although the Court of Special Appeals overturned the findings of
the trial court with respect to Damien’s legal status on the property, the
award of summary judgment was upheld on the ground that the Condominium lacked
the requisite knowledge of the dangerous condition or defect in the community
sign that caused Damien to fall and sustain injuries. Accordingly, the Condominium prevailed on
appeal.
The precedent set by this new opinion will undoubtedly impose
additional liability concerns for condominium associations and their respective
liability and casualty insurers. In
order to best defend future claims, such as Damien’s, condominium associations
should consider taking two preemptive steps.
First, condominium associations should consider increasing or amending
the signage and fencing in the common areas of their properties to expressly
delineate areas that should not be accessed by the general public. Second, condominium associations would be wise
to supplement or revise their condominium agreements to include strong
exculpatory clauses to have their condominium owners release and hold harmless
the condominium association from negligence actions for injuries claimed by
invitees and social guests occupying the common areas of the condominium
complexes.
-Benjamin Beasley, Associate Attorney
No comments:
Post a Comment