Court Opinion

ID: 9454282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:42:07.8418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:03.408010
License: Public Domain

BAZELON, Chief Judge
(concurring in the result):
The rule developed in the cases cited by the majority is often explained on the theoretical basis that all persons lawfully on the premises are the landlord’s invitees.1 But in my view our decision does not- depend upon adherence to the out-moded “invitee-licensee-trespasser trinity.”2 The Supreme Court,3 several states,4 and England 5 have all recognized that the common-law clssifications and their progeny of subclassiifcations are discordant with the realities of modern living.6 In admiralty law the Supreme Court has replaced the trinity with a flexible standard based on the ordinary rule of negligence requiring due care under all the circumstances7 — a concept which this court had previously • adopted to replace conceptual distinctions between “degrees of care.” 8 Here, in accordance with this modern authority, the landlord’s duty to entrants upon common-use areas reserved to his control is better expressed in terms of '“due care under all the circumstances.”

. See Landay v. Cohn, 220 Md. 24, 150 A.2d 739 (1959); Lord v. Lencshire House, Ltd., 106 U.S.App.D.C. 328, 272 F.2d 557 (1959); Restatement, Torts 2d § 332, comment k (1965).

. Daisey v. Colonial Parking, Inc., 118 U.S.App.D.C. 31, 33, 331 F.2d 777, 779 (1963) (opinion of this writer).

. Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 630-631, 79 S.Ct. 406, 3 L.Ed.2d 550 (1959); Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 265-267, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960).

. See Taylor v. New Jersey Highway Auth., 22 N.J. 454, 126 A.2d 313, 62 A.L.R.2d 1211 (1956); Good v. Whan, 335 P.2d 911 (Okl.1959); Fernandez v. Consolidated Fisheries, 98 Cal.App.2d 91, 219 P.2d 73, 76-77 (1950); Alexander v. General Accident Fire & Life Assur. Corp., 98 So.2d 730 (La.App.1957); Scheibel v. Lipton, 156 Ohio St. 308, 102 N.E.2d 453 (1951).

. Occupiers’ Liability Act, 1957, 5 & 6 Eliz. 2, c. 31.

. In the landlord-tenant situation, both Maryland and the District have recognized, in various contexts, that the common law’s conception of a landowner’s duty of care must often be adjusted to meet the needs of present-day urban life. See, e. g., Langley Park Apts., Sec. H, Inc. v. Lund, 234 Md. 402, 199 A.2d 620, 623 (1964); Sezzin v. Stark, 187 Md. 241, 49 A.2d 742, 746 (1946); Gould v. DeBeve, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 360, 330 F.2d 826 (1964); Kay v. Cain, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 24, 25, 154 F.2d 305, 306 (1946); Hanna v. Fletcher, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 310, 318, 231 F.2d 469, 477 (1956) (concurring opinion).

. Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, supra, note 3, 358 U.S. at 631-632, 79 S.Ct. 406.

. Hecht Co. v. Jacobsen, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 81, 180 F.2d 13 (1950), See also Daisey v. Colonial Parking, Inc., supra, note 2, 118 U.S.App.D.C. at 33-34, 331 F.2d at 779-780.