|
Strict Liability:
In Shawna Barber v. Eastern Karting Co., et al., CSA No.
784, Sept. Term, 1995. Filed March 28, 1996. The Maryland Court of
Special Appeals held that the execution of a release or waiver of a right to
sue does not prevent an injured person from instituting suit where the injuries
could not reasonably be predicted from the content of the waiver/release
agreement. The Court in pertinent part stated “We are satisfied that the
release in the instant case is not sufficiently clear and definite to enable us
to conclude that, as a matter of law, that appellant must have understood the
release to cover the strict products liability claims.” The case involved
a tragic and serious injury sustained by a female plaintiff whose hair got
caught in the rear axle of a go-kart during a go-kart race at Summit Point,
West Virginia. Among the allegations of the complaint were that the defendant
negligently failed to warn the Plaintiff that loose hair or clothing could get
caught in the go-kart’s moving parts and cause her injury.
Tort Law, Duty of Care: In Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. Natalie Noel Reading, et al., CSA
No. 954, Sept. Term, 1995. Filed March
29, 1996. The Court held that where a common carrier could not
reasonably be expected to discovery a passenger’s handicap, and the
passenger is injured, the common carrier will not be held to a higher duty of
care to the rider. The issue involved whether the plaintiff’s mental
disability in combination with WMATA’s conduct constituted negligence.
|
The Court assumed, without deciding, the existence in Maryland of a greater
duty of care owed to a handicapped passenger by a common carrier, and indicated
that such a duty may only be imposed when the carrier knows or reasonably
should know of the particular handicap.
Tort Law, Liability for Animal Damage: In
Gunpowder Horse Stables, Inc. v. State Farm Automobile Insurance
Company, et al., CSA No. 1726, Sept. Term, 1995. Filed March 27, 1996.
The Court held that a charter county has the authority to regulate animals
in matters related to their presence within its borders, but the county may not
create a new cause of action between private
parties concerning matters of a state wide concern. The case involved a
traffic collision between a motorist and two horses belonging to the defendant.
Statutory liability was imposed on the horse owner under a county code
provision. The court reasoned that the common law of Maryland recognizes only
two causes of action against the owner of a domestic animal (1) negligence and
(2) strict liability. The Court held that a county may not create a new cause
of action between private parties concerning matters of statewide concerns.
|
