Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND GARY KAUFFMAN v. RICHFOOD, INC. * * * Civil No. JFM-07-2589 * * ***** MEMORANDUM

In this premises liability case, defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion. The motion will be granted. Plaintiff, a business investor on defendant's premises, claims that he slipped and fell as the result of several tiles that were missing on a loading dock. On deposition, plaintiff testified that he had been aware of the missing tiles for "at least two or three months." (Kauffman Dep. 35:7, Dec. 10, 2007.) Under Maryland law it is clear that the owner of a premises is not liable for harm suffered by an invitee if the condition giving rise to the injury is open and obvious. In circumstances analogous to those presented here, courts have held that the plaintiff's claim fails as a matter of law. See, e.g., Gellerman v. Shawan Rd. Hotel Ltd. P'ship, 5 F. Supp. 2d 351 (D. Md. 1998) (a crack in the pavement of a parking lot was deemed to be open and obvious); Finkelstein v. Vulcan Paint & Const. Co., 224 Md. 439, 168 A.2d 393 (1961) (a bolt protruding from the floor of a catwalk was deemed to be open and obvious). Accordingly, defendant's motion for summary judgment will be granted. A separate order to that effect is being entered herewith.

Date: March 5, 2008

/s/ J. Frederick Motz United States District Judge

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND GARY KAUFFMAN v. RICHFOOD, INC. * * * Civil No. JFM-07-2589 * * ***** ORDER

For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum, it is, this 5th day of March 2008 ORDERED 1. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted; and 2. Judgment is entered in favor of defendant against plaintiff.

/s/ J. Frederick Motz United States District Judge



Download Gary Kauffman v . Richfood, Inc..pdf

Maryland Law