by Raymond Daniel Burke | Aug 21, 2012
After granting a motion to reconsider its ruling imposing strict liability on the owners of pit bulls and their landlords, the Maryland Court of Appeals has revised its decision by keeping the ruling in place as to pure bred pit bulls, but deleting its application to cross breds. The Court originally held that the owners of pit bull breeds, as well as landlords who permit tenants to own pit bulls, are strictly liable for damages arising from an attack by these dogs. The decision in Tracy v. Solesky changed the common law, which requires that a plaintiff must prove knowledge on the part of the owner or landlord that the dog was dangerous. Subsequently, the Court determined that it would hear arguments to reconsider the decision. Interested groups on both sides of the contovery filed amicus curie briefs with the Court, and the matter was a subject of the recent special session of the Maryland General Assembly, which considered but did not pass legislation on the issue. The revised ruling means that the common law, requiring proof of knowledge that the dog is dangerous, continues to apply in Maryland to all breeds, including those deemed to be cross-bred pit bulls, but that strict liability applies to pure bred pit bulls. Look for this issue to again be taken up when the Maryland General Assembly meets in its regular session commencing in January 2013.
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Aug 16, 2012
The recent special session of the Maryland General Assembly, called primarily to enact legislation expanding gambling, also considered but did not finalize legislation that would have addressed the decision of the Court of Appeals imposing strict liability on the owners of pit bulls and their landlords. This means that the current process of reconsideration of the ruling by the Court of Appeals will proceed. The Court held that the owners of pit bull breeds, as well as landlords who permit tenants to own pit bulls, are strictly liable for damages arising from an attack by these dogs. The decision in Tracy v. Solesky changed the common law, which requires that a plaintiff must prove that the dog was known to be dangerous. Subsequently, the Court determined that it will hear arguments to reconsider the decision. Interested groups on both sides of the contovery have filed amicus curie briefs with the Court, and seek to be heard on the issue.
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Jul 23, 2012
A Maryland legal ruling recently made national news when the Court of Appeals held that the owners of pit bull breeds, as well as landlords who permit tenants to own pitbulls, are strictly liable for damages arising from an attack by these dogs. The decision in Tracy v. Solesky changed the common law, which requires that a plaintiff must prove that the dog was known to be dangerous. Now the Court has determined that it will hear arguments to reconsider the decision. Interested groups on both sides of the contovery have filed amicus curie briefs with the Court, and seek to be heard on the issue.
The victim in the underlaying case was Dominic Solesky, a 10-year-old boy who in 2007 was mauled by a pit bull. Solesky was seriously injured in the attack, requiring five hours of surgery, including repair of his severed femoral artery. He spent seventeen days in the pediatric intensive care unit, had additional surgeries, and spent a year in rehabilitation. In 2008, his parents filed a complaint seeking money damages against the dog’s owners and their landlord, alleging negligence and strict liability. The dog’s owners subsequently declared bankruptcy. At trial, the court ruled that there was insufficient evidence that the landlord knew of the vicious nature of the dog. In 2011, the Court of Special Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision. The landlord’s insurer appealed to Maryland’s highest court.
In modifying Maryland common law of liability relating to attacks by pit bulls and pit bull-mixes, the Court of Appeals concluded that “because of its aggressive and vicious nature…pit bulls and cross-bred pit bulls are inherently dangerous” and went on to “impose greater duties by reducing the standards necessary to hold owners and others liable for the attacks of their pit bulls.”
Stay tuned for developments as the issue is reconsidered.
by Raymond Daniel Burke | May 1, 2012
In a unanimous opinion filed on April 30, 2012, the Maryland Court of Appeals has established that provisions the Maryland Consumer Protection Act apply to the information contained in a condominium resale certificate, and a council of unit owners and property manager can be liable for unfair and deceptive trade practices if the information has a tendency to mislead the purchaser, even though they are not party to the sales contract, and even if they have otherwise complied with the condominium resale disclosure requirements contained in Section 11-135 of the Maryland Condominium Act. I have previously written about an earlier decision of the Court of Appeals in the case of MRA Property Management, Inc., et al. v. Armstrong, No. 93, Sept. Term 2007, filed on October 25, 2011. A majority of the Court held that the Maryland Consumer Protection Act applies to purchases of condominium units with respect to the information required to be provided by a council of unit owners in the resale certificate. The Court ruled that, where a council of unit owners and its property management company violate the resale certificate disclosure obligations imposed by Md. Real. Prop. Code Ann. Sec. 11-135, “they engage in unfair and deceptive trade practices ‘in the sale of consumer realty.’” The Court specifically held that such a violation of the Consumer Protection Act can occur even though the defendants were not parties to the sale of the unit, were not “merchants.” 
Subsequently, however, in response to motions for reconsideration filed on behalf of both sides in the appeal, the Court withdrew and agreed to reconsider its opinion. Following re-argument, the Court has now issued its final opinion, holding that the statutory duties to provide the disclosure information required under Section 11-135 of the Condominium Act, “sufficiently implicated [the council and the property manager] in the entire transaction so as to impose liability under the Consumer Protection Act.” (more…)
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Apr 14, 2012
Section 11-131 of the Maryland Condominium Act provides significant warranty protections for the purchasers for new condominium units. Section 11-131 (a) codified the ruling in StarfishCondominium Ass’n v. Yorkridge Service Corp., and established that new home warranties under Section 10-203 “apply to all sales by developers” of condominiums, and that “a newly constructed private dwelling unit means a newly constructed or newly converted condominium unit and its appurtenant undivided fee simple interest in the common areas.” Specific warranties are applicable to certain specified components of both individual units and the common elements, and they are the obligation of the condominium’s developer. (more…)
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Mar 25, 2012
I was recently asked to again discuss the impled warranties under Maryland law. Pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Real Prop. Tit. 10, certain implied warranties are applicable to the sale of every newly constructed home in Maryland. These warranties are applicable to all “improvements,” which are defined as “every newly constructed private dwelling unit, and fixture and structure which is made part of a newly constructed private dwelling unit at the time of its construction.” They are enforceable against a “vendor,” defined as “any person engaged in the business of erecting or otherwise creating an improvement on realty, or to whom a completed improvement has been granted for resale in the course of his business.” These broadly worded implied warranties provide that the improvement is: (1) Free from faulty materials; (2) constructed according to sound engineering standards; (3) constructed in a workmanlike manner; and (4) fit for habitation. However, it is expressly provided that these warranties “do not apply to any condition that an inspection of the premises would reveal to a reasonably diligent purchaser at the time the contract is signed. Nevertheless, there is a fifth implied warranty that is not subject to the inspection exception. This is the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. “If the purchaser, expressly or by implication, makes known to the vendor the particular purpose for which the improvement is required, and it appears that the purchaser relies on the vendor’s skill and judgment, there is an implied warranty that the improvement is reasonably fit for the purpose.” (more…)
