Preview:

HEADNOTE Stephon Collins et al. v. Gui-Fu Li et al., No. 1297, September Term, 2005, Michael Chapman et al. v. Gui-Fu Li et al., No. 590, September Term, 2006 Determination of Foreseeability; Motion to Dismiss: Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Lane, 338 Md. 34, 52 (1995); Lashley v. Dawson, 162 Md. 549, 563 (1932); Little v. Woodall, 244 Md. 620, 626 (1966); a foreseeability inquiry [and proximate cause of an injury] is ordinarily a question of fact to be decided by the finder of fact; it is only when the facts are undisputed, and are susceptible of but one inference, that the question is one of law for the court; in determining liability for the cause of a house fire, the circuit court erred in ruling on a motion to dismiss that the allegations contained in Re-Filed Omnibus Amended Complaint were sufficient to determine the issue of foreseeability as to builder, electrical contractor, manufacturer and landlord. Negligence, Proximate Cause, Intervening Negligent Acts as Superseding Causes: Hartford Ins. Co. v. Manor Inn of Bethesda, Inc., 335 Md. 135 (1994); circuit court erred in ruling, as a matter of law, that the allegations that negligence of landlord in permitting tenants to use basement area without emergency egress as bedrooms, in violation of housing code, and tenants' negligence in allowing a candle used for lighting during a power outage were not causes of house fire which superseded the negligence of manufacturers of smoke detector without battery back-up, homebuilder and its electrical contractor who installed smoke detector and repairman hired to repair water damage resulting from broken water pipe; General Field of Danger: Restatement,

Download Collins v. Li.pdf

Maryland Law