Opinion ID: 2304474
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Negligence Counts Against Double H Family and La Belle Epoque

Text: Double H Family and La Belle Epoque contend that because Old Europe was not an authorized tenant of 4124-F Howard Avenue, it may only be considered a trespasser or a bare licensee to whom a minimum duty, i.e., the duty to avoid willful injury or entrapment, was owed. Additionally, Double H Family posits that it owed no duty to maintain the common areas under the Lease agreement because the Lease specifically designated this responsibility to the tenant. It further states that even if it did reserve control over the common areas in the Lease agreement, it exercised the reasonable care and diligence required of it to maintain such areas. Old Europe argues that it had a lawful tenancy in the premises and was owed, at the minimum, a duty of reasonable care. Upon review of the record, we agree with the Court of Special Appeals that the Circuit Court erred in concluding that Old Europe was a bare licensee or a trespasser as to the negligence counts against Double H Family and La Belle Epoque. We have determined that a genuine dispute of material fact exists concerning Old Europe's status as an assignee under the Lease and whether the Lease between Desbois and Double H Family was surrendered. If a trier of fact finds that Old Europe had a valid leasehold interest, then the trier of fact must also determine if Double H Family breached duties owed to Old Europe by virtue of Maryland law and/or the Lease agreement. [13] If we assume arguendo that Old Europe acquired a leasehold interest and that the alley involved in this case is a common area, it is well established, under Maryland law, that a landlord ordinarily has control over the common areas, and has a duty to avoid unreasonable risks of harm to others caused by activities conducted within the common areas. See Langley Park Apts. v. Lund, Adm'r, 234 Md. 402, 407, 199 A.2d 620, 623 (1964) ([W]here a landlord leases separate portions of his property to different tenants and reserves under his control the passageways and stairways, and other parts of the property for the common use of all the tenants he must exercise ordinary care and diligence to maintain the retained portions in a reasonably safe condition.); See also Matthews v. Amberwood, 351 Md. 544, 557-58, 719 A.2d 119, 125 (1998) (A landlord may be held liable for neglecting to remedy defects or dangers in an area that the landlord controls.). Moreover, Maryland law provides that a landlord may not include exculpatory clauses within leases that exempt the landlord from liability for harm that occurs in areas that the landlord controls. Md.Code (1974, 2003 Repl. Vol), § 8-105 of the Real Property Article; See also Prince Philip Partnership v. Cutlip, 321 Md. 296, 304, 582 A.2d 992, 995 (1990); Adloo v. H.T. Brown, 344 Md. 254, 259, 686 A.2d 298, 301 n. 4 (1996). Accordingly, upon the record before us, if a reasonable trier of fact finds that Double H Family maintained control of the alley at issue in this case, the trier of fact could also conclude that Double H Family breached its duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining the alley. As to La Belle Epoque, it would be liable for its own negligence for injury caused to others resulting from the placement of debris in the alley, whether or not the alley is considered a common area. See Frenkil v. Johnson, 175 Md. 592, 599, 3 A.2d 479, 482 (1939) ([O]ne must use their own rights and property so as to do no injury to those of others.); Rosenblatt v. Exxon, 335 Md. 58, 76, 642 A.2d 180, 189 (1994) ([T]he occupier of land owes a duty to occupants of neighboring land to use care when conducting activities on the land so as to avoid harm to the neighboring land.). When a person elects to do or keep something on his or her property that exposes neighboring property to danger, that person has a duty to make the condition reasonably safe. Toy v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co., 176 Md. 197, 213, 4 A.2d 757, 765 (1939). A person who negligently fails to make the condition reasonably safe can be liable for harm that the condition causes to neighboring premises. See Toy, 176 Md. at 213, 4 A.2d at 765; See also Frenkil, 175 Md. at 600, 3 A.2d at 482. We hold that a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the pile of trash and debris that La Belle Epoque allegedly allowed to accumulate in the alley constituted a dangerous condition on the premises and that La Belle Epoque failed to remove the debris or protect others from that condition. Therefore, we conclude that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether La Belle Epoque negligently caused injury to Old Europe. As such, we shall remand this matter to the Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS AFFIRMED WITH COSTS. HARRELL, J. and RAKER, J. join judgment only.