Martinez v. Ross, No. 2374, 2020
Md. App. LEXIS 398, Opinion by Arthur, J.
This past April,
the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland provided some clarity regarding a property owner’s liability under the Maryland Recreational Use Statute in its Martinez
v. Ross decision.
On October 29, 2016, Daniel Ross
hosted a family and friends event called “Cookout, Bikes, and Music” at his
Penn Shop Farm property. In the past, Ross had used Penn Shop Farm property to create
all-terrain vehicle (ATV) and dirt bike courses. The courses, however, were not
open to the public. Moreover, the sole entrance to Penn Shop Farm was
controlled by fencing and a metal gate, locked with a chain and a padlock. Further,
the gate brandished signs reading, “Keep Out;” “No Trespassing;” and “Posted.
No Trespassing, Keep Out.” On the day of the event, Ross gave Anthony Martinez
an ATV to ride on the course. While navigating the course on the ATV, Martinez
was thrown over the handlebars. The ATV landed on top of Martinez, and he
suffered spinal injuries rendering him a quadriplegic.
Subsequently, Martinez filed suit
alleging that his injuries were caused by Ross negligently designing the
course. Ross filed a motion for summary judgment claiming statutory immunity
under Maryland’s Recreational Use Statute. In part, this Statute states, ”. . .
an owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the premise safe for entry or use
by others for any recreational or educational purpose, or to give any warning
of a dangerous condition . . . on the premise to any person who enters the land
for these purposes.” Md. Code Ann., Nat. Res. § 5-1103. Ultimately, Ross won on
his motion, and Martinez appealed.
On appeal, the Court of Special
Appeals faced a drafting issue. In other words, there was tension between the
expressed statutory purpose of the Recreational Use Statute, which was to
encourage owners to open their land to the general public, and the operative
provisions of it, which could be read to grant limited liability against the
claims of ordinary invitees and licensees. Although drafting problems relating to
Recreational Use Statutes have been addressed by other states, this was a
matter of first impression for Maryland.
In addressing this issue, the Court
opined that when interpreting the Recreational Use Statute, it should be
done so in accordance with its express purpose. For Maryland, that purpose is
to permit owners to invoke the statutory limitations on liability only if they
make their land available to the general public. Moreover, when the operative
sections of the Statute discuss the limitations on an owner’s liability to persons
or to others, that language must be read to refer to persons or others as
members of the general public. Likewise, the statutory language does not
limit an owner’s liability to social guests.
In the present case, Ross was not eligible for statutory immunity given by the Recreational Use Statute. Ross’s Penn Shop Farm was not open to the general public; instead, the entrance was gated and locked with multiple “No Trespass” warnings posted. Likewise, his past use of the property as an ATV and dirt bike course was limited to friends and family. Moreover, by hosting his event, he was not making his property available to the public as contemplated by the Statute. Therefore, the Court found that the circuit court judge erred in entering summary judgement against Martinez on the basis of the Recreational Use Statute.
-Robert
Merrifield, IV, Law Clerk
