Opinion · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Lexington Market Authority v. Zappala
233 Md. 444
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals of Maryland
- Jurisdiction
- Maryland
- Date
- 1964-02-04
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- holding that there was insufficient evidence of constructive notice where the plaintiff testified she did not see any oil when she first parked the car and/or when she returned and fell two hours later
- JNOV was appropriate because there was no evidence that parking garage had notice of oil or grease from patron’s vehicle that caused plaintiff to slip and fall
- the court reversed and remanded to enter judgment for the defendant, where the oil or grease that the plaintiff slipped on, may have leaked from a car nearby, moments before she fell
- commercial business owner did not breach duty of care by failing to instantaneously detect and correct dangerous condition of oil or grease on parking garage floor which allegedly caused customer to fall
- no liability for an oil or grease spot in a parking garage where there was no evidence the condition was caused by the garage or its employees or when the spill occurred
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Lexington Market Authority v. Zappala. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 43 opinions
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This appeal is from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict after the trial court denied a motion for judgment N.O.V. The plaintiff sustained injuries from slipping on a spot of oil or grease in a self-service parking garage. The plaintiff was a business invitee, to whom the proprietor owed a duty to exercise ordinary care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Nalee, Inc. v. Jacobs, 228 Md. 525, 529; Rawls v. Hochschild, Kohn & Co., 207 Md. 113, 117; Moore v. Ameri *446 can Stores Co., 169 Md. 541, 546. See also the cases in 62 A.L.R. 2d 6. But the burden is upon the customer to show that the proprietor created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive knowledge of its existence. Montgomery Ward v. Hairston, 196 Md. 595; Rawls v. Hochschild, Kohn & Co., supra. In the cases last cited the issue was withdrawn from the jury.
The plaintiff in the instant case did not observe any oil or grease on the floor when she parked her car. When she returned less than two hours later, she slipped while attempting to enter her car from the passenger side. For all we know, the oil or grease may have leaked from a car occupying the space beside her car, only a few moments before she returned. She did not see the oil or grease before she slipped. She had a large paper bag in her arms. It may well be that a garage keeper should anticipate that oil or grease may occasionally leak from parked cars, but he is not an insurer and we think it would be unreasonable to hold that it is his duty to continuously inspect and sand down any and all leakage as soon as it occurs, even if we assume that periodic inspections are necessary.
There is no evidence at all that the condition was caused by the proprietor or its employees, or that there was actual notice of the condition. On the record, we think the plaintiff failed to make out a case of constructive notice.
Judgment reversed with costs, and entered for the defendant.