Understanding Landlord Liability in Maryland

“A landlord has an affirmative duty to provide his or her tenants with a reasonably safe means of passage to and from their homes.” (See Thomas v. Panco Management of Maryland, LLC (2011) 423 Md. 387, 409; Langley Park Apartments, Sec. H., Inc. v. Lund, 234 Md. 402, 407 (Md. 1964) [where 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 then exercise ordinary care and diligence to maintain the retained portions in a reasonably safe condition].)

“Before the doctrine of contributory negligence can be successfully invoked, it must be demonstrated that the injured party acted, or failed to act, with knowledge and appreciation, either actual or imputed, of the danger of injury which his conduct involves.” (See Thomas v. Panco Management of Maryland, LLC (2011) 423 Md. 387, 418.)

“Stated another way, when one who knows and appreciates, or in the exercise of ordinary care should know and appreciate, the existence of danger from which injury might reasonably be anticipated, he must exercise ordinary care to avoid such injury; when by his voluntary acts or omissions he exposes himself to danger of which he has actual or imputed knowledge, he may be guilty of contributory negligence.” (See id; Menish v. Polinger Co. (1976) 277 Md. 553, 560–61, 356 A.2d 233, 237.)

“A landlord's control over conditions on its premises always has been a critical factor that we consider in determining landlord liability.” (See Hemmings v. Pelham Wood Ltd. Liability L.P. (2003) 375 Md. 522, 537; Matthews v. Amberwood Assoc. (1998) 351 Md. 544, 557, 719 A.2d 119, 125.)

Landlord Duty to Protect

“Whether a landlord has a duty to protect a plaintiff depends, in turn, on three circumstances:

1. [whether] the landlord controlled the dangerous or defective condition;
2. [whether] the landlord had knowledge or should have had knowledge of the injury causing condition; and
3. [whether] the harm suffered was a foreseeable result of that condition.”

(See Ogunde v. Johnson, No. 2141, at *5 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Jan. 8, 2019); Ward v. Hartley (2006) 168 Md. App. 209, 214-15; Hemmings v. Pelham Wood Ltd. (2003) 375 Md. 522, 537-38.)

Landlord Duty of Reasonable and Ordinary Care

“The basic elements necessary for a cause of action in negligence are a duty or obligation which the defendant is under to protect plaintiff from injury, a failure to discharge that duty, and actual loss or injury to the plaintiff proximately resulting from that failure.” (See Scott v. Watson (1976) 278 Md. 160, 165-66; Peroti v. Williams (1970) 258 Md. 663, 669, 267 A.2d 114.)

“We held in Macke Laundry Serv. Co. v. Weber, 267 Md. 426, 429-31, 298 A.2d 27 (1972), that a landlord who has set aside areas for the use of his tenants in common owes them the duty of reasonable and ordinary care to keep the premises safe. In other words, mere ownership of buildings does not render the owner liable for injuries sustained by tenants since the landlord is not an insurer of such persons; rather, as we said in Elmar Gardens, Inc. v. Odell, 227 Md. 454, 457, 177 A.2d 263 (1962), where a landlord leases separate portions of a property to different tenants and reserves under his control halls, stairways, and other portions of the property used in common by all tenants, he is only obliged to use reasonable diligence and ordinary care to keep the portion retained under his control in reasonably safe condition.” (See id.)

“While the Maryland cases recognizing this duty on the part of the landlord have primarily involved injuries resulting from defects in the premises, we think the rule encompasses within its general ambit injuries sustained by tenants as a result of criminal acts committed by others in the common areas within the landlord's control.” (See id.)

Burden of Proof and Standard of Review for Landlord Liability

“[A] common thread running through many of our cases involving circumstances in which landlords have been held liable ( i.e., common areas, pre-existing defective conditions in the leased premises, a contract under which the landlord and tenant agree that the landlord shall rectify a defective condition) is the landlord's ability to exercise a degree of control over the defective or dangerous condition and to take steps to prevent injuries arising therefrom.” (See Hemmings v. Pelham Wood Ltd. Liability L.P. (2003) 375 Md. 522, 537.)

“Conversely, when a landlord has turned over control of a leased premises to a tenant, it ordinarily has no obligation to maintain the leased premises for the safety of the tenant.” (See id.)

“The principal rationale for the general rule that the landlord is not ordinarily liable for injuries caused by defects or dangerous conditions in the leased premises is that the landlord `has parted with control.” (See Matthews v. Amberwood (1998) 351 Md. 544, 556; Marshall v. Price (1932) 162 Md. 687, 689, 161 A. 172, 172.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on Landlord Liability

“Under our cases, whether a landlord owes a duty to his or her tenants and their guests with respect to dangerous or defective conditions on the property, of which the landlord has notice, depends upon the circumstances presented. In a multi-unit facility, the landlord ordinarily has a duty to maintain the common areas in a reasonably safe condition.” (See Matthews v. Amberwood (1998) 351 Md. 544, 553-54.)

“[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 then exercise ordinary care and diligence to maintain the retained portions in a reasonably safe condition. Our recognition of landlord liability in common areas is generally premised on the control a landlord maintains over the common areas." (See Matthews v. Amberwood (1998) 351 Md. 544, 554; Shields v. Wagman (1998) 350 Md. 666, 673; Langley Park Apts. v. Lund Adm'r (1964) 234 Md. 402, 407, 199 A.2d 620, 623.)

Current as of April 01, 2024 | Updated by Trellis Law Content Team

The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information and is subject to change without notice.