 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Moore v. Jimel9/27/2002
conduct of a third person arises under Maryland law only when a special relationship exists, such as that created by common carrier and passenger. The storekeeper and business invitee do not have that special relationship.
....
The general duty of reasonable care ... does not include a requirement to provide police protection. Id. (emphasis supplied).
Judge Niemeyer's conclusion made it clear that the question of whether a duty is owed is an issue of law, for the court, and not an issue of fact, for the jury.
Were the Court to hold otherwise, every newsstand, drug store, fast food establishment, gas station and similar establishment would be required to provide security guard service for its business invitees. The articulation of a duty so broad and with such extensive consequences rests on the legislature and will not be imposed judicially. Would one guard be enough? What procedures would be necessary for the guard to prevent criminal activity? Could the requirement to have a security force or guard not lead to greater harm and exposure to business invitees by confrontation? These are not questions of reasonableness for the jury to decide, but are questions of duty. 689 F. Supp. at 563-64 (emphasis supplied).
Having established the pertinence of Scott v. Watson, we turn to that opinion's answer to the first certified question:
e hold that there is no special duty imposed upon the landlord to protect his tenants against crimes perpetrated by third parties on the landlord's premises. Indeed, this is the general rule in other jurisdictions. In a somewhat analogous situation we noted, in Nigido v. First Nat'l Bank, 264 Md. 702, 288 A.2d 127 (1972), the absence of authority for the proposition that a bank owed a customer, shot by robbers in the course of a bank holdup, a special duty of protection; we said there that he was owed the same duty a shopkeeper owes his customer, to use reasonable care for his protection ....
The general rule is a subsidiary of the broader rule that a private person is under no special duty to protect another from criminal acts by a third person. 278 Md. at 166 (emphasis supplied).
After further discussion, Chief Judge Murphy restated the Maryland law on the subject:
e decline to impose a special duty on a landlord to protect his tenants from criminal activity since to do so would place him perilously close to the position of insurer of his tenants' safety. Our answer to the first certified question is that Maryland law does not impose upon the landlord of an urban apartment complex a special duty to tenants to protect them from the criminal acts of third parties committed in common areas within the landlord's control. 278 Md. at 167 (emphasis supplied).
Foreseeability of Risk As Creating a Special Duty
The first certified question having been answered by the Court of Appeals in the negative, the second certified question now assumes pertinence. Might the foreseeability of future criminal activity, based on the knowledge of past criminal activity, create a duty to provide security even if the duty would not otherwise exist?
"(2) If no such duty exists generally, would such a duty be imposed if the landlord has knowledge of increasing criminal activity on the premises or in the immediate neighborhood?" 278 Md. at 162.
Chief Judge Murphy, quoting from Eyerly v. Baker, 168 Md. 599, 607, 178 A. 691 (1935), responded to that question by stating that a duty may be enhanced or an additional duty created based on the foreseeability of the special risk:
storekeeper who invites the public to come upon his p
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|