Most of us think that when we enter the property of a business establishment we have a right to rely upon the owner to have taken reasonably good care of the property, and if we are injured by some defect may think we have a good claim against the owner. Maryland law has long held that the answer to whether the owner is responsible is: it depends. This is illustrated by a recent opinion by Maryland’s intermediate appellate court in Deboy v. City of Crisfield.
Ms. Deboy was in the habit of walking her dogs over a particular route, that included crossing over part of a property on which a convenience store was located. Sometimes, she would also go into the store to make a purchase. On the day in question she did not intend to go into the store, but was walking the dogs when she stepped on the housing over a water meter. The housing gave way, and she fell and injured her leg.
She then sued the property owner, claiming that they were negligent (did not exercise reasonable care) in their maintenance of the housing over the meter. The trial court threw out her case before trial on a motion filed by the owner, holding that she was a “bare licensee” and that therefore no legal duty had been breached by the owner. The appellate court agreed, and explained.
Under Maryland law, the duty owed to someone who comes onto the premises of another depends on the status of the person who enters the land. The person entering the property is generally classified as an invitee, a bare licensee, or a trespasser. An invitee includes the typical customer who comes to a store to make a purchase. Such persons are owed a duty of reasonable care, that is the property owner must take reasonable steps to make the premises safe and to protect the customer from injury.
A bare licensee, on the other hand, is one to whom the owner extends no invitation to enter the property, and merely tolerates their presence. Such a person is treated under the law like a trespasser, who enters without any permission. The only duty owed to such persons is to not be reckless or, in legalese, not to act in a “willful or wanton manner” causing injury to the licensee.
Ms. Deboy admitted that she had she was not on the property that day as a customer, or for the “mutual benefit” of herself and the property owner. She argued instead that she had an “implied invitation” to enter the property, established by a habit of consent by the owner to let her walk her dogs, or by the general layout of the property. The appellate court haled that she had not established such an implied invitation on these facts, and her case was properly dismissed since the owner clearly had not acted in a reckless manner.
These rules may sound very complicated, but they are designed to balance the needs of the public to be safe from defects in public premises with the rights of the property owner. So before you sue someone for falling, you need to figure out what hat you were wearing at the time.