Lexington Market Authority v. Zappala
| Decision Date | 04 February 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 177,177 |
| Citation | 233 Md. 444,197 A.2d 147 |
| Parties | LEXINGTON MARKET AUTHORITY v. Pauline ZAPPALA et vir. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Jeffrey B. Smith, Baltimore (Paul E. Burke, Jr., and Smith, Somerville & Case, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
Stafford H. Plimack, Baltimore, for appellees.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.
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, 180 A.2d 677; Rawls v. Hochschild, Kohn & Co., 207 Md. 113, 117, 113 A.2d 405; Moore v. American Stores Co., 169 Md. 541, 546, 182 A. 436. 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 & Co. v. Hairston, 196 Md. 595, 78 A.2d 190; 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 In the cases last cited the issue was withdrawn from the jury.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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Joseph v. Bozzuto
...statement of the knowledge requirement is that by Judge Henderson for the Court of Appeals in Lexington Market Authority v. Zappala, 233 Md. 444, 445-46, 197 A.2d 147 (1964): The plaintiff was a business invitee, to whom the proprietor owed a duty to exercise ordinary care to keep the premi......
-
Zilichikhis v. Montgomery Cnty.
...motor oil inside a parking garage does not generate an issue of fact as to a defendant's negligence. See Lexington Market Auth. v. Zappala, 233 Md. 444, 445–46, 197 A.2d 147 (1964). The plaintiff in that case testified that she slipped and fell on a spot of oil or grease in a self-service p......
-
Plantholt v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., LLC, Civil No. ELH-14-2091
...safety. Moulden v.Greenbelt Consumer Services, Inc., 239 Md. 229, 232, 210 A.2d 724, 725 (1965); Lexington Market Authority v. Zappala, 233 Md. 444, 446, 197 A.2d 147, 148 (1964). And, like the owner, the invitee has a duty to exercise due care for his own safety. This includes the duty to ......
-
Maans v. Giant of Md., LLC
...dangerous condition or had actual or constructive knowledge of its existence" prior to the invitee's injury. Lexington Mkt. Auth. v. Zappala, 233 Md. 444, 446, 197 A.2d 147 (1964) (citations omitted); see also Moulden, 239 Md. at 232, 210 A.2d 724, and Tennant, 115 Md.App. at 389, 693 A.2d ......