Premises Liability Complaint

PREMISES LIABILITY COMPLAINT — MARYLAND

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Parties
3. Jurisdiction and Venue
4. Factual Allegations
5. Duty of Care — Visitor Status
6. First Cause of Action — Negligence (Premises Liability)
7. Second Cause of Action — Failure to Warn
8. Third Cause of Action — Negligent Maintenance
9. Damages
10. Jury Demand
11. Prayer for Relief
12. Verification
13. State-Specific Notes
14. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR [COUNTY NAME / BALTIMORE CITY]

STATE OF MARYLAND

2. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF FULL NAME] ("Plaintiff") is an individual residing in [CITY], [COUNTY] County, Maryland.

2. Defendant [DEFENDANT FULL NAME] ("Defendant") is [an individual residing in / a corporation organized under the laws of / a limited liability company formed under the laws of] [STATE], and at all relevant times was the [owner / lessee / occupier / manager] of the real property located at [PROPERTY ADDRESS], [CITY], [COUNTY] County, Maryland (the "Premises"). Defendant may be served with process at [ADDRESS FOR SERVICE].

3. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 1-501 and § 4-401.

5. Venue is proper in [COUNTY / BALTIMORE CITY] pursuant to Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 6-201 because [the cause of action arose in this county / Defendant resides in this county].

4. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

6. At all relevant times, Defendant [owned / leased / occupied / managed / controlled] the Premises located at [PROPERTY ADDRESS], [CITY], Maryland [ZIP CODE].

7. On or about [DATE OF INCIDENT], Plaintiff was [lawfully present on / entering / exiting] the Premises for the purpose of [PURPOSE OF VISIT].

8. At the time of the incident, there existed on the Premises a dangerous condition, specifically: [DESCRIBE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN DETAIL].

9. Defendant had [actual / constructive] knowledge of the dangerous condition because:

☐ Defendant created the dangerous condition.

☐ Defendant had actual knowledge of the condition through [DESCRIBE].

☐ The condition existed for a sufficient period of time that Defendant, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have discovered it.

☐ The condition was part of a recurring hazard known to Defendant.

10. As a direct result of the dangerous condition, Plaintiff [DESCRIBE INCIDENT] and sustained serious injuries.

11. Plaintiff was not contributorily negligent in any manner. Plaintiff exercised due care for Plaintiff's own safety at all times.

5. DUTY OF CARE — VISITOR STATUS

12. At the time of the incident, Plaintiff was [an invitee / a licensee by invitation / a bare licensee] on the Premises.

If Invitee:

13. Plaintiff entered the Premises for a purpose connected with the business or activity of Defendant. Defendant owed Plaintiff the duty of using reasonable and ordinary care to keep the Premises safe for invitees and to protect invitees from injury caused by an unreasonable risk that the invitee would not discover, including a duty to conduct reasonable inspections to discover latent hazards.

If Licensee by Invitation:

13. Plaintiff entered the Premises as a social guest with Defendant's express or implied invitation. Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty to warn of dangerous conditions of which Defendant had knowledge and which were not obvious to the licensee.

If Bare Licensee:

13. Plaintiff entered the Premises with Defendant's mere acquiescence. Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty to refrain from willful or wanton misconduct and to warn of known dangerous conditions.

6. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION — NEGLIGENCE (PREMISES LIABILITY)

(Against [DEFENDANT NAME])

14. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 13 above.

15. Defendant owed Plaintiff the duties described above based on Plaintiff's status on the Premises.

16. Defendant breached these duties by [failing to maintain the Premises / failing to inspect for hazards / failing to repair the dangerous condition / failing to adequately warn Plaintiff].

17. Defendant's breach was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

18. Plaintiff was free of contributory negligence at all relevant times.

7. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION — FAILURE TO WARN

(Against [DEFENDANT NAME])

19. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

20. Defendant knew or should have known of the dangerous condition on the Premises.

21. Defendant failed to provide adequate warning to Plaintiff of the dangerous condition.

22. Defendant's failure to warn was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries.

8. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION — NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE

(Against [DEFENDANT NAME])

23. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

24. Defendant had a duty to properly maintain the Premises in a reasonably safe condition.

25. Defendant negligently failed to perform required maintenance, specifically [DESCRIBE].

26. Defendant's negligent maintenance was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries.

9. DAMAGES

27. As a proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff has suffered the following damages:

a. Medical Expenses: Past and future reasonable and necessary medical expenses.

b. Lost Wages and Earning Capacity: Past and future loss of wages and earning capacity.

c. Physical Pain and Suffering: Past and future physical pain and suffering.

d. Mental Anguish: Past and future mental anguish and emotional distress.

e. Physical Impairment: Past and future physical impairment and disability.

f. Disfigurement: Past and future disfigurement.

g. Loss of Consortium: [IF APPLICABLE — Loss of consortium.]

10. JURY DEMAND

28. Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues.

11. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant as follows:

1. Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
2. Non-economic damages as permitted under Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 11-108;
3. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
4. Costs of suit;
5. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

Respectfully submitted,

[LAW FIRM NAME]

By: ________________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME], Bar No. [NUMBER]
[ADDRESS LINE 1]
[ADDRESS LINE 2]
[CITY], Maryland [ZIP CODE]
Telephone: [PHONE]
Facsimile: [FAX]
Email: [EMAIL]
Attorney for Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME]

12. VERIFICATION

STATE OF MARYLAND
[COUNTY / BALTIMORE CITY]

I, [PLAINTIFF FULL NAME], do solemnly declare and affirm under the penalties of perjury that the facts stated in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

________________________________________
[PLAINTIFF FULL NAME]

Date: [__/__/____]

13. STATE-SPECIFIC NOTES

CRITICAL: Contributory Negligence. Maryland is one of only four states (plus DC) that still uses pure contributory negligence. ANY fault on the part of the plaintiff completely bars recovery. This makes careful pleading and evidence preservation essential.

Visitor Classifications. Maryland retains the traditional categories: invitees (highest duty), licensees by invitation, bare licensees, and trespassers (lowest duty). The duty owed depends on the classification.

Three-Year Statute of Limitations. Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101 provides three years from the date of injury.

Non-Economic Damages Cap. Maryland caps non-economic damages. The cap increases by $15,000 each year. Verify the current amount under § 11-108.

Government Claims. Claims against local governments require compliance with the Local Government Tort Claims Act, Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-301 et seq. Claims against the State require compliance with the Maryland Tort Claims Act, Md. Code, State Gov't § 12-101 et seq., with a 180-day notice requirement.

Last Clear Chance Doctrine. Maryland retains the "last clear chance" doctrine, which can overcome a contributory negligence defense if the defendant had the last opportunity to avoid the harm.

Assumption of Risk. Maryland recognizes both express and implied assumption of risk as defenses.

14. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101 — Statute of limitations
• Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 11-108 — Non-economic damages cap
• Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-301 et seq. — Local Government Tort Claims Act
• Taneian v. Meghrigian, 15 N.J. 267 (cited in MD premises analysis)
• Parks v. Rogers, 176 N.J. 491 (2003) (for duty framework)
• Harrison v. Montgomery County Bd. of Educ., 295 Md. 442 (1983)