Appellate Decisions (Continued from page 45)
inspect the premises before leasing, but because of the implied representation that accompanies the making of the lease, he or she fails to do so at his or her peril.
Joseph Benik, et. al. v. Brandon Hatcher No. 20 September Term, 1998. Decided April 14, 2000. Opinion by Bell, C.J.
Torts
Torts - Negligent Misrepresentation - Pre-Employment Negotiations - A pro- spective employee may have a valid claim of negligent misrepresentation if the employer owed a duty to exercise reason- able care in conveying accurate information to the employee and that employee reasonably relied on the infor- mation and suffered damage as a result of its inaccuracy.
Facts: Mr. James V. Griesi (“Griesi”) filed suit in the Circuit Court for Worcester County against Atlantic General Hospi- tal Corporation (“Atlantic General”) alleging that Atlantic General negligently misrepresented material facts during the course of pre-employment negotiations upon which Griesi relied to his detriment. The suit arose after Atlantic General ex- tended an offer of employment to Griesi which he accepted. Later, Atlantic Gen- eral told him there was no job for him. Griesi alleged that Atlantic General’s chief executive officer extended him an
offer of employment for a position, which Griesi accepted, that he later learned may never have existed and that the CEO may not have had the authority to extend such a position. In relying on the CEO’s state- ments and offer of employment, Griesi also turned down another employment offer from a different employer. Atlantic General argued that, under
the employment at-will doctrine, it had the liberty to hire and fire Griesi at any time thereafter and, therefore, it could not be held liable for the CEO’s statements even if they were inaccurate or false. The Circuit Court dismissed Griesi’s claim under the premise that the employment at-will doctrine barred his claim. The Court of Appeals, on its own initiative, granted certiorari before the Court of Special Appeals considered Griesi’s appeal.
Held: Reversed. The Court held that if Griesi’s allegations were true, Atlantic General had established a relationship with Griesi during pre-employment ne- gotiations to the point where it had a duty to exercise reasonable care in conveying accurate information to him about the job position. If in reasonably relying on the false information conveyed by Atlantic General, Griesi suffered some damages, his claim was cognizable in Maryland under a theory of negligent misrepresen- tation.
The Court rejected Atlantic General’s assertion that the employment at-will doctrine barred the claim. It reasoned that the doctrine does not absolve the em- ployer for a tort committed during pre-employment negotiations. The Court
also clarified that the tort of negligent misrepresentation in an at-will employ- ment situation is not limited to high-level executives.
James V. Griesi v. Atlantic General Hospital Corp., No. 128, September Term, 1999, de- cided July 25, 2000. Opinion by Harrell, J.
________
Torts – Lead Paint Poisoning Case – Grant of Summary Judgment was proper where there was no evidence that defen- dants knew or had reason to know that the premises’ deteriorated lead paint con- dition caused plaintiff’s injuries.
Jones v. Mid-Atlantic Funding Co., No. 6766, Sept. Term, 1998, filed April 27, 2000. Opinion by Salmon, J.
________
Torts – Premises Liability: Law Enforce- ment Officer who was injured in fall upon common area parking lot of apart- ment complex and who had entered parking lot for purpose of going to an apartment unit to serve a subpoena was not injured as a consequence of the situ- ation that required his services; therefore, fireman’s rule did not apply. Law enforcement officer who was privileged to enter upon common park- ing lot of apartment complex was owed a duty of ordinary care by owner and operator of an apartment complex in the absence of evidence to show that the manner of time or of his entry implicated risks above and beyond those that would be encountered by the tenants and their guests on the common area.
Facts: On the evening of February 15, 1995, Deputy Sheriff Jaime Rivas went to the Oxon Hill Village Apartments to serve a subpoena on a witness. Parking his car on the apartment complex park- ing lot, Rivas attempted to cross a stretch of asphalt ten to fifteen feet from the side- walk of the apartment complex. Rivas sustained serious personal injuries when he slipped and fell on a patch of ice. Rivas filed a negligence action against
Oxon Hill Joint Venture (“Oxon Hill”), the owner of the apartment complex, and Southern Management Corporation (“Southern”), Oxon Hill’s managing agent. He argued that he was an invitee while on the premises and that Oxon Hill and Southern owed him a duty to keep the premises reasonably safe.
The trial
court granted Oxon Hill and Southern’s motion for summary judgment based on the Fireman’s Rule.
46 Trial Reporter Fall 2000
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48