Smith v. Bay Front, LLC

ANITA SMITH v. BAY FRONT, LLC

No. 1272

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2019

June 15, 2021

Circuit Court for Baltimore County

Case No. 03-C-18-004376

UNREPORTED

Kehoe, Leahy, Adkins, Sally D. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Leahy, J.

*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.

Anita Smith appeals from the grant of summary judgment by the Circuit Court of Baltimore County on July 31, 2019, in favor of appellee Bay Front, LLC ("Bay Front"). Ms. Smith filed a negligence complaint against Bay Front to recover damages for injuries she suffered on March 4, 2018, when the interior wooden steps, in the townhome in which she and her children resided, collapsed as she descended on her way to the basement. Ms. Smith and her family were leasing the townhome from Bay Front at the time.

In granting Bay Front's motion for summary judgment, the circuit court found that, in absence of any evidence that Bay Front knew or should have known that the staircase was defective or in need of repair, it could not be held liable for Ms. Smith's injuries resulting from the collapse of the steps within the townhome 18 months into the leasehold. The court rejected Ms. Smith's res ipsa loquitor argument because the landlord relinquished the right to possession of the interior of the townhome to Ms. Smith, and therefore, Bay Front did not have exclusive control of the steps, as required for application of the doctrine. Ms. Smith filed a timely appeal and presents one question with sub-parts¹ for our review, which we have recast as follows:

Did the circuit court err in granting the motion for summary judgment on the ground that Bay Front did not have notice of the defect and that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor did not apply?

Finding no error with the judgment of the circuit court, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

The Falling Staircase

In 2018, Anita Smith was a resident and lessee of property, located at 2108 Cockspur Road in Baltimore, Maryland, owned by Bay Front. On or about March 4, 2018, Ms. Smith was walking down an interior staircase of the property to the basement, which she had typically done about six times a week, when the staircase "sudden[ly] and unexpected[ly]" collapsed. Ms. Smith fell as a result and allegedly suffered "severe personal injury."

Prior to the staircase collapsing, there had not been any modifications or changes to the basement stairs since Ms. Smith leased the property. Ms. Smith noticed that the stairs would squeak but never complained to Bay Front because she did not "think anything of it." She also did not notice any other issues with the staircase. After the fall, Ms. Smith contacted the property manager for the first time regarding the stairs and informed her that the staircase had collapsed.

On April 30, 2018, Ms. Smith filed a "Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial." In her complaint, she alleged that she was a "business invitee" of Bay Front and that the company was solely "responsible for the inspection, maintenance, care and repair of thepremises . . . including the inspection, maintenance, care and repair of the said basement steps[.]" Ms. Smith also alleged that the steps were in the exclusive control of Bay Front and that the company "had a legal duty to keep the subject premises and its defective steps at issue, in a reasonable safe condition for use by its customers and invitees, including [Ms. Smith], and to exercise reasonable care to discover, correct or warn customers and invitees, including [Ms. Smith], of any danger, hazards or defective conditions existing upon said premises." Based on these claims, she asserted a single count of negligence against Bay Front and sought $500,000.00 in damages.

Discovery

The parties proceeded with discovery. Ms. Smith designated expert witnesses—chiropractors and internists—to testify regarding her injuries and damages. Specifically, she anticipated that, among other topics, "each medical provider will testify regarding the treatment received by [Ms. Smith] as a result of the incident that is the subject of this action; . . . the nature and extent of any permanent injury sustained by [Ms. Smith] and the reasonableness and cost of any future medical treatment." Both parties also submitted answers to interrogatories.

On October 12, 2018, Bay Front deposed Ms. Smith. During the deposition, she explained that she did not inform the landlord of any issues with the basement steps, prior to the incident, because she had only noticed a light squeak. She further testified that she had previously contacted Victor Moxey, the "maintenance man" on "numerous occasions" to address issues with the property. For example, Ms. Smith called Mr. Moxey to addressa leaking sink. However, she testified that she did not inform Mr. Moxey, or any other agents of Bay Front, of any issues with the stability of the steps, because while "[t]hey squeaked really bad," she "didn't think anything of it." Following discovery, Bay Front filled a motion for summary judgment.

Motion for Summary Judgment

On December 21, 2018, Bay Front moved for summary judgment. In its motion, Bay Front asserted that Ms. Smith "failed to establish any actionable negligence on the part of [] Bay Front" for two reasons. First, according to Bay Front, Ms. Smith never provided the company with "any notice[,]" either actual or constructive, that the steps were in disrepair. Bay Front conceded that "[a]lthough the stairs did suddenly collapse, there is no evidence that these stairs collapsed due to any defect or poor upkeep on the part of [] Bay Front." Second, Bay Front contended that, in the alternative, even if it had conducted a reasonable inspection of the steps prior to the incident, there is no evidence that they would have discovered the existence of a defect. The company further asserted that Ms. Smith or her "daughter and her 340-pound son, who each weekly [sic] walked up and down the basement steps for laundry purposes, never complained to management about the steps." Thus, Bay Front contended that "the law cannot hold [Bay Front] liable for 'dangerous conditions' of which only extraordinary foresight or burdensomely frequent inspections could have prevented."

In her opposition, Ms. Smith argued that summary judgment was improper because material facts, and the susceptible inferences from those facts, were in dispute.Particularly, she asserted that the question of whether the allegedly defective stairwell is a "hidden danger that requires a warning is specifically a jury issue." According to Ms. Smith, the law "cited by [Bay Front] has no application to the case at issue." Rather, she contended, "this case is a classic application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor as it applies to a case involving collapsed steps." Ms. Smith stressed that she "has not sought to prove or attempt[ed] to prove [Bay Front]'s negligence by any means, other than application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor[.]"

Bay Front replied, averring that Ms. Smith had "not proffered any evidence as to the cause of the incident" and that the company had "no notice that the steps were in anything but good condition." Turning to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, Bay Front contended that the "doctrine is inapplicable to the present action" because Ms. Smith failed to prove that the injury occurred "by a casualty of a sort which usually does not occur in the absence of negligence"; that the staircase was "within [Bay Front]'s exclusive control"; and, that the steps collapsed "under circumstances indicating that it was not caused by any involuntary act or neglect of the plaintiff."

Motions Hearing

At the hearing on Bay Front's motion for summary judgment, the parties reiterated the arguments presented in their briefs. Bay Front maintained that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor should not apply because Bay Front did not have "exclusive possession of the instrumentality of the injury." In the alternative, Bay Front argued that even under a traditional negligence analysis, without application of res ipsa loquitor, the elementsrequired to prove negligence would not be satisfied because Bay Front did not have actual or constructive notice. Bay Front explained that it did not have exclusive control over the staircase because, "[t]his is a case where the [] fall took place on the interior steps of a home that was rented to [Ms. Smith]. No other tenants in that property. She is the one . . . who has the tenancy there, who is in possession of the property and certainly not [Bay Front]."

Ms. Smith responded that the use of res ipsa loquitor was not intended to be a substitute for "a complete legal theory;" rather, it was intended to be "a[n] evidentiary substitute that allows the Plaintiff to provide evidence in the sense where none will be apparent for the Plaintiff to ever have." Ms. Smith urged that the photographs attached to pleading should show to the court that, "it's the jury's providence in this case to take a look at those photographs and along with the instruction about res ipsa loquitur" and "do with it [] what they might. In this case I think it's a -- is a finding of negligence."

The court questioned counsel whether under Maryland premises liability law, as articulated in Matthews v. Amberwood, 351 Md. 544 (1998), the landlord is not required to repair the interior of a leased premises that is not shared as "common area" with other tenants. The trial judge observed that, based on his understanding of Matthews, regarding the interior of a leased premises "the landlord is essentially not in a position to know of any defects in the premises that he's not on notice of." The court further stated:

I mean -- and I'm looking at Matthews versus Amberwood, 351 Md. 544, which is a 1998 case out of the Court of Appeals.

...