Macias v. Summit Mgmt., Inc.

57 Citing cases

  1. Janson v. Reithoffer Shows, Inc.

    Case No.: DLB-19-79 (D. Md. Jun. 4, 2020)

    [I]n general, the highest duty is owed to invitees; namely, the duty to "use reasonable and ordinary care to keep the premises safe for the invitee and to protect the invitee from injury caused by an unreasonable risk which the invitee, by exercising ordinary care for the invitee's own safety will not discover."Macias v. Summit Mgmt., Inc., 220 A.3d 363, 376 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2019) (quoting Deboy v. City of Crisfield, 893 A.2d 1189, 1193 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2006)); see also Sherman, 384 A.2d at 79; Gonzalez, 2020 WL 2395991, at *5. Therefore, Reithoffer had a duty to "use reasonable and ordinary care to keep the premises safe" for Ms. Janson and to protect her "from injury caused by an unreasonable risk" that she would not discover when "exercising ordinary care for [her] own safety."

  2. Craig v. Costa Mgmt.

    No. 0934-2020 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Nov. 15, 2022)

    In doing so, "we must first ascertain, independently, whether a dispute of material fact exists in the record on appeal." Macias v. Summit Mgmt., Inc., 243 Md.App. 294, 313, 315 (2019) (explaining that "[a] material fact is one that, 'depending on how it is decided by the trier of fact, will affect the outcome of the case'" and that "[t]he burden is on the party opposing . . . summary judgment to 'show disputed material facts with precision'" (quoting Warsham v. James Muscatello, Inc., 189 Md.App. 620, 634 (2009))). "'[O]nly where such dispute is absent will we proceed to review determinations of law[,]' and then we will 'construe the facts properly before the court, and any reasonable inferences that may be drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.'" Macias, 243 Md.App. at 313 (alterations in original) (quoting Remsburg v. Montgomery, 376 Md. 568, 579-80 (2003)).

  3. Hubberman v. Council of Unit Owners of Teal Marsh Condo.

    No. 0037 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Feb. 20, 2020)

    Accordingly, we do not express any opinion on the other legal issues raised at the summary judgment stage. See Macias v. Summit Management, Inc., 243 Md. App. 294, 313 (2019) (explaining that an appellate court reviews only the grounds relied upon by the circuit court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment). Counsel for Mr. Harrison argued next, asserting that Mrs. Hubberman's testimony was susceptible to only one interpretation—that solely for her own purposes—she was on the property to walk her dog.

  4. Weikers v. Eleven Slade Apartment Corp.

    No. 430-2022 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Apr. 12, 2023)

    . A review of the circuit court's decision to grant summary judgment thus begins by determining "whether a dispute of material fact exists in the record on appeal." Macias v. Summit Mgmt., Inc., 243 Md.App. 294, 313 (2019). "[O]nly where such dispute is absent will we proceed to review determinations of law."

  5. Davis v. Regency Lane, LLC

    249 Md. App. 187 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2021)   Cited 15 times
    In Davis v. Regency Lane, LLC, 249 Md.App. 187, 245 A.3d 115 (2021), the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland found that the plaintiff, whose minor child was shot and killed by an unknown assailant outside of an apartment building, did not sufficiently plead a claim for negligence against the landlord based on a failure to prevent criminal activity.

    "[I]f the plaintiff does not, in the first instance, introduce evidence on each element which is sufficient to warrant a finding in his favor, he will lose his case at the hands of the court (by nonsuit, directed verdict, or the like)." Macias v. Summit Mgmt. Inc. , 243 Md. App. 294, 316, 220 A.3d 363 (2019) (quoting Pratt v. Md. Farms Condo. Phase 1, Inc ., 42 Md. App. 632, 640, 402 A.2d 105 (1979) ). We address first Regency's contention that the circuit court properly granted summary judgment in its favor because appellants failed to meet their burden to show the first requirement, that it had a duty to the decedents.

  6. Fleming v. Scott

    No. 636 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. May. 3, 2021)

    "We review the circuit court's grant of summary judgment without deference." Macias v. Summit Mgmt., Inc., 243 Md. App. 294, 312 (2019). We first must ascertain if there are any disputes of material facts.

  7. Martinez v. Ross

    245 Md. App. 581 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2020)   Cited 11 times

    At common law, when persons are injured while on the property of another, their legal status dictates the scope of an owner’s duties to them. See , e.g. , Macias v. Summit Mgmt., Inc. , 243 Md. App. 294, 316-17, 220 A.3d 363 (2019). "[I]n general, the highest duty is owed to invitees; namely, the duty to ‘use reasonable and ordinary care to keep the premises safe for the invitee and to protect the invitee from injury caused by an unreasonable risk which the invitee, by exercising ordinary care for the invitee’s own safety will not discover.’ "

  8. Mitchell v. Rite Aid of Md., Inc.

    257 Md. App. 273 (Md. 2023)   Cited 13 times
    In Mitchell, the plaintiffs were also employed by Capstone "as temporary laborers" at a facility leased and operated by Rite Aid of Maryland, Inc. 257 Md. App. at 281, 290 A.3d 1125.

    As we review the trial court's grant of summary judgment for legal correctness, we independently examine the facts properly before the court, and construe any reasonable inferences that may be drawn from them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Macias v. Summit Mgmt., Inc. , 243 Md. App. 294, 313, 220 A.3d 363 (2019) (quoting Remsburg v. Montgomery , 376 Md. 568, 579–80, 831 A.2d 18 (2003) ). In doing so, we are also mindful that in order to defeat a defendant's motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party "must show that there is a genuine dispute as to a material fact by proffering facts which would be admissible in evidence."

  9. Leonard v. Schmidt

    No. 508-2023 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. May. 7, 2024)

    1. Premises Liability Notably this Court has stated premises liability is "based on common law principles of negligence," and as such a plaintiff is required to establish, as in any negligence action "(1), that the defendant was under a duty to protect the plaintiff from injury, (2) that the defendant breached that duty, (3) that the plaintiff suffered actual injury or loss, and (4) that the loss or injury proximately resulted from the defendant's breach." Macias v. Summit Mgmt., Inc., 243 Md.App. 294, 313 (2019) (quoting Joseph v. Bozzuto Mgmt. Co., 173 Md.App. 305, 314 (2007)).

  10. Thornton v. Montgomery Gen. Hosp.

    No. 249-2021 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Dec. 7, 2021)

    will be reviewed by this Court without deference. Macias v. Summit Mgmt., Inc., 243 Md.App. 294, 312 (2019). As we have previously stated, "[w]e apply a de novo standard of review in determining whether the trial court correctly entered summary judgment."