The Mary Hastings versus Gilford County Recreations and Parks case

RE: An examination into the issue of whether Gilford County Recreations and Parks could be found liable for negligence or not.

The Mary Hastings versus Gilford County Recreations and Parks case

Issue

The following issues have to be resolved before the trial commences:

A determination of whether Gilford County Recreations and Parks can be determined as legally liable for negligence under Landowner Liability. This in the event that Hastings slipped and as a result broke her arm while walking in the Gilford County Park, even if the Gilford County Recreations and Parks had no previous knowledge of their being black ice in the park at the time.

Short Answer

No. Mary Hastings did not make any errors when she was walking her dog, Harry in the Gilford County Park on the morning of January 2, 2008. It was snowing heavily in the days before she went out to walk in the park and even though the park management claims that the park had been shoveled and sanded, the evidence can be adequate to meet the “careless management” point of the Gilford County statute.

Facts

The Mary Hastings Case was based in the following facts that were obtained from a verbal interview with the client on June 5, 2008. The client’s full names were Mary Hastings, a divorced woman from Gilford County who worked as a counselor in a school. She also earned an average of about US $65,000 annually. The details of her incident were discussed in the presence of Alice Chong, another paralegal with Chong and Associates. The following is Mary Hastings’ account of what happened on the day of the ordeal. On January 2, 2008 at around 7 am, she was walking her dog, Harry at the local park that was a couple of blocks away from her house. The snow had fallen to about three inches two nights before she took the fateful walk, and by then, the sidewalks were cleared and sanded by the parks’ management.

It was during her walk with Harry round the pond in the park that she slipped and fell on the black ice. When Miss Hastings slipped, she broke her right arm on the edge of the pond. Miss Hastings maintained that nobody saw the accident as the park was empty at the time when she was strolling. She helped herself up and went to call an ambulance from her house that took her to the Gilford County Hospital. Her arm was analyzed and treated by Dr. Samantha Edwards who put her right arm on a cast that stayed on for 8 weeks. However, the client states that even though her arm healed, she experiences pain whenever the weather is chilly, raining or snowing. Because of the accident, she lost one week of productive working hours at the office. After that incident, she reported the accident to the Gilford County Recreations and Parks.

Analysis

The Gilford County statute provides “…a possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to his invitees by a condition on the land if, but only if, he knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition. The possessor should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees, and should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it, and fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger…” (American Law Institute, 2009). Therefore, the management of Gilford County Recreations and Parks can be found guilty of neglecting to maintain the park if they (a) did not shovel the snow and sand the pathways in the park and (b) they did not maintain the paths in the whole park uniformly. As requested, the memorandum will concentrate solely on negligence.

“Negligence” means the complacence, inactivity or sloth by the people responsible for maintaining the safety of certain premises where people operate their personal and public engagements. When an accident occurs to any individual using public property, management of the property is legally responsible if it can be verified that their negligence caused the injury. The responsibility of the owner or manager of real property to the injured is settled on based on the negligence on the part of the owner. The Gilford County required that when the management of a property fails to prevent the users of their premises from getting physically hurt, the court could have valid grounds to charge the owner with negligence.

Chandra Maans v. Giant of Maryland 161 Md. App. 620; 871 A.2d 627; 2005 Md. App has an example of negligence by the property owner that was defined as an offence under the law. In Giant of Maryland, the defendant had exposed some of the slippery liquid in an area where customers were passing. The court will find that such actions met the negligence requirement because the action may have been to clean the floors, or had happened accidentally, but ended in harming one of the store’s customers. Thus, in Giant of Maryland, the threat was an intentional oversight on the part of the store’s management that allowed Mr. Chandra Maans to slip and hurt himself.

In the Michael Singer Joseph v. Bozzuto management company case, the plaintiff had acquired an injury after slipping on the property grounds. The plaintiff was on a visit to a family member when she fell. The management made a claim that they did not have prior knowledge of the oily substance that made the injured party slip. The injured plaintiff also had no evidence to support her claims that the management was aware of the dangerous circumstance. The Maryland common law dictates that if the complainant should be able to show evidence that the owners had a case of negligence. In conclusion, the plaintiff’s case was dropped, and he was instead ordered to reimburse the owners for their expenses in printing the court material. In this case, the accuser might have been injured, but his injury was caused by ignorance on his part. This could not be pinned on the building’s management.

In some cases, the court has ruled that before any case of negligence can be considered credible, the circumstances should be put into consideration for instance in the Michael Singer Joseph versus Bozzuto case. In Michael Singer Joseph, the court will have to scrutinize the entire situation including other surrounding happenings and the effect that the accident had on the plaintiff. Because the alleged accident had caused the plaintiff to miss a week’s worth of productivity in the office and significant ability to use her right arm in performing common chores, the Michael Singer Joseph court took the accident as more credible.

Counter-Argument

The accident experienced by Miss Mary Hastings might also be a case of a legitimate mishap that was not caused, in any way, by the negligence on the part of Gilford County Recreations and Parks management. In the Deering Woods Condominium Association et al. v. Margaret F. Spoon case, the pedestrian was also walking her dog along a path when she was injured. She sued the landowner for failing in maintaining the path and letting the spilling water into the pathway that caused her to slip. Although all the necessary safety precautions had been taken such as removing the snow and ice, and that no one had ever complained about the ice for over twenty years, the court saw it fit to declare the accident by Miss Margaret Spoon a mishap on her part. The court declared that the condominium was not in any way responsible for the accident.

In the Mary Hastings versus Gilford County Recreations and Parks case, Miss Mary Hastings went for a walk very early in the morning at a time when the park janitors may not have arrived. This would have meant that she would have had an accident before the people responsible for maintaining the park had reached. Furthermore, during the time of the accident, there were no people to see how the mishap occurred. Therefore, her case has no witnesses who can reinforce her theory. Miss Hastings was also slightly aged and highly unstable. Lastly, Miss Hastings might have slipped on her own accord and not prompted in any way by the snow from the previous fall two days ago. In such a case, the case brought to the court by Miss Hastings would be considered null and void and non-admissible in a court of law.

Rebuttal

Mrs. Hastings’ counterargument is weak. The Gilford County Recreations and Parks management argued that, for over a period of two decades, no one has ever reported cases of negligence or complacency by the park janitors. The park also has a strict supervisory system that ensures that safety precautions have been met. The park management claimed that ever since Miss Hastings filed the lawsuit, people have been afraid of using the park for walks and other recreation purposes citing danger as the problem. The management’s reputation was therefore, being tarnished for no clear reason. The park management could not be blamed for an isolated accident that could have been the fault of many other factors apart from the poor snow shoveling and sanding by the owners.

Conclusion

The facts and the law confirm that the Gilford County Recreations and Parks management did create an unsafe environment that caused Miss Mary Hastings to experience an accident. The workers at the park cleared the park pathways and sanded them, but these actions of maintenance were apparently not enough to prevent Miss Hastings from slipping and hurting herself. In the past, courts would have regarded factors outside negligence but the glaring evidence makes the case more credible. Accordingly, it is most likely that Gilford County Recreations and Parks management will be charged with negligence and ordered to compensate Miss Mary Hastings.

References

American Law Institute. (2009). Restatement of the law third, torts–liability for physical and emotional harm: Tentative draft no. 6 (March 2, 2009)–subject covered chapter 9, duty of land possessors. Philadelphia, Pa. (4025 Chestnut St., Philadelphia 19104-3099: Executive Office, American Law Institute