Articles Posted in Slip and Fall

Last updated September 29, 2026 · Reviewed by Vadim A. Mzhen

A woman visiting her son’s grave at a Prince George’s County cemetery stepped into a ditch hidden by poor upkeep and was seriously hurt. A trial court threw out her negligence case, reasoning that Maryland’s Recreational Use Statute relieved the cemetery’s owner of any duty to her because she had entered without paying. The Appellate Court of Maryland reversed that ruling in a reported opinion filed July 30, 2026, holding that the trial court had applied the wrong legal test.

Free entry alone does not trigger the Maryland recreational use statute. The court has to look at the area where the injury happened, ask what the owner intended that area to be used for, and ask what the injured person was doing there, not why she was there. A claim can go forward where the area was meant for commercial purposes and the person’s activity fit those purposes, even if the same activity could also be described as recreational.

A fall inside a grocery store often gets dismissed as an accident, something unfortunate but unavoidable. For many Maryland families, that assumption changes quickly once injuries turn out to be serious. Wet floors, spilled products, and poorly maintained aisles can cause lasting harm, especially for older shoppers or anyone with existing health conditions. In many cases, these falls were preventable with reasonable care.

The question families usually ask early is whether the store should be responsible. Under Maryland law, the answer depends on what the store knew or should have known about the hazard and how it responded.

Why Grocery Store Falls Are So Common

When an injury claim settles, most people assume the case is closed. However, what happens if critical information is withheld during negotiations? A recent Maryland case sheds light on this issue. In the case, Edward Sniadach v. Two Farms, two individuals who suffered slip-and-fall injuries and later accused an insurance company and its claims administrator of fraudulently inducing them into accepting lower settlements. This case raises important questions about fair dealing in settlement negotiations and highlights the importance of having an experienced Prince George’s County personal injury lawyer on your side.

The Accident and the Initial Claims

Both individuals were injured in separate slip-and-fall accidents on the property of a business. Like many premises liability claims, they sought compensation for their injuries through the business’s insurance provider. The company’s insurance carrier, Zurich America Insurance Co., handled the claims, while Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. acted as the claims administrator.

A key issue in these claims involved Medical Payments (Med-Pay) coverage, a type of insurance that pays medical bills for injuries occurring on insured property, regardless of fault. One claimant actively asked about Med-Pay multiple times before settling, while the other settled before even learning of its availability.

One claimant settled for $16,385, with $6,385 explicitly marked as Med-Pay funds. The other claimant settled for $15,000 without being informed about Med-Pay coverage. He later learned—after signing the release—that Med-Pay was available.

The plaintiffs later alleged that the insurance companies had deliberately withheld information about Med-Pay to push them toward lower settlements.

Continue reading ›

Bouncy houses and other inflatable rentals are popular event attractions for children. However, these inflatables can become hazardous if not properly secured or monitored. Accidents involving bouncy houses can lead to severe injuries, including broken bones, concussions, and, in some cases, life-threatening conditions. If your child has been injured in a bouncy house or other inflatable accident, a Maryland accident attorney can help you learn about your rights and remedies.

Bouncy House Accident at Southern Maryland Blue Crabs Stadium

A serious accident took place at the Southern Maryland Blue Crabs stadium, where a bouncy house was unexpectedly lifted and flipped by a strong gust of wind, resulting in several children being thrown about 15 feet to the ground. Emergency responders quickly arrived on the scene, and due to the critical nature of some injuries, two children were airlifted to Children’s National Hospital. Other children involved in the accident received immediate care from on-site EMS personnel.

Like much of the east coast, the winter months bring snow and ice to many parts of Maryland. Naturally, this weather can increase the risk of injuries from a slip and fall. While many weather-related accidents occur at businesses, especially in parking lots or sidewalks, individuals can suffer injuries anywhere snow and ice accumulate. Under Maryland law, property owners have a duty of care to those who enter their property. The standard of care varies depending on the type of visitor; however, generally, property owners must ensure that their property is reasonably safe from dangers.

During the winter, property owners have the duty to exercise reasonable care in areas that they should reasonably expect people to be. The duty includes inspecting the property for dangers like icy patches and other slick areas. Further, property owners should remediate dangerous conditions that may lead to a slip and fall. Those who fail to do this may be liable for negligence under the state’s premises liability laws.

Are Maryland businesses responsible for clearing sidewalks after a snow storm?

Many businesses and government properties contract with snow removal companies to ensure that their property is clear of dangers; However, in most cases, liability for a slip and fall injury still falls on the property owner. For example, a property owner may be liable for injuries if their snow removal company did a poor job or failed to remove the hazards. The inquiries in these cases tend to hinge on the totality of the circumstances and whether the property owner’s conduct was reasonable.

Many Maryland accident victims do not have direct evidence of a defendant’s negligence. That is, the plaintiff does not have direct proof of the cause of the accident. In these cases, accident victims must prove the case through circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s fault, relying on inferences of the defendant’s fault.

How Does a Maryland Accident Victim Prove a Personal Injury Claim?

In a Maryland negligence claim, a plaintiff must generally show that the defendant had a duty to protect the plaintiff from injury, the defendant breached that duty, the plaintiff suffered an injury or loss, and the loss or injury was proximately caused by the defendant’s breach of its duty. Proof of causation may rest on direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of the two. A negligence claim can rest solely on circumstantial evidence. However, the circumstantial evidence must create “a reasonable likelihood or probability rather than a possibility” that supports a “rational basis of causation” and cannot be based solely on speculation.

In a recent case before a state appeals court, the court considered whether there was sufficient evidence of causation in a case that rested on circumstantial evidence. In that case, the plaintiff went to a medical center to visit a patient. As she was walking to the patient’s room, the plaintiff slipped and fell in front of a utility-room door and fractured her kneecap. She alleged that the floor was wet and sued the Medical Center for negligence. The case went to trial, and a jury found in the plaintiff’s favor and awarded her more than a million dollars. The defendant appeal, arguing in part that there was insufficient evidence of a wet floor or that the medical center knew of a wet substance on the floor.

Health care facilities, such as hospitals, rehabilitation centers, and outpatient treatment facilities owe a duty of care to their patients and visitors. The duty of care is a facet of the facility’s obligation to prevent hazards and unreasonable risk of harm to those on their property. Hospital injury cases tend to fall under Maryland medical malpractice or premises liability laws. In contrast, hospital visitor injury claims are a bit more convoluted but generally fall under premises liability theories of negligence.

Maryland premises liability claims may apply in cases when a person suffers injuries because of a dangerous condition at another’s public or private property. The law provides property owners and occupiers to keep their land or business reasonably safe for individuals they can reasonably expect will enter their property. Challenges often arise when the property owner asserts that they did not owe a duty to the injury victim, based on their visitor status.

What Are the Classifications of Visitors Under Maryland Premises Liability Law?

There are four types of visitor classifications for Maryland premises liability purposes. These classifications include invitees, licensee by invitation, bare licensee, and trespassers. Invitees are usually business guests or customers. Property owners have the duty to keep the property safe by engaging in inspections, protecting the visitor from foreseeable dangers, and warning them of any potentially dangerous conditions. Licensee by invitation is social guests, such as a guest at a party. In these cases, even though they are invited, a property owner must only warn the licensee of dangerous conditions the owner knows about, but they don’t need to inspect the property. Bare licensees are those who enter another’s property with consent and knowledge, but for the visitor’s purpose or interest. This may include solicitors or possibly hospital visitors. In these cases, the property owner must refrain from purposefully injuring the bare licensee or creating new dangers without warning. Finally, trespassers are those that enter another’s a property without permission. In these cases, the owner must only refrain from intentionally hurting the individual.