Crews v. Hollenbach
2000 Md. LEXIS 245, 358 Md. 627, 751 A.2d 481 (2000)
Rule of Law:
The conventional doctrine of assumption of the risk, which bars recovery, applies when a plaintiff 1) has knowledge of the risk, 2) appreciates the risk, and 3) voluntarily exposes themselves to it, even if the risk is inherent to their employment, provided they had a clear and reasonable choice rather than confronting the danger.
Facts:
- On March 23, 1996, John Hollenbach, Sr., an employee of Honcho & Sons, Inc., was excavating land in Bowie, Maryland.
- The excavation area was previously marked by Byers Engineering Company to indicate the presence of buried utility lines, pursuant to the “Miss Utility” statute.
- Despite the markings, Hollenbach struck a buried natural gas line owned by Washington Gas, causing a leak.
- Neither Hollenbach nor anyone at the scene immediately reported the leak, allowing natural gas to release freely into the air and ground for approximately two hours.
- A resident located about one mile from the leak recognized the smell of gas and notified the fire department, leading to the evacuation of the surrounding neighborhood.
- Washington Gas was contacted and dispatched a repair crew, led by Lee James Crews, a foreman with over twenty years of experience with the company.
- Upon arrival, Mr. Crews and his co-employees began dissipating the gas that had permeated the ground and working to close off the leak.
- While the crew was engaged in repairing the leak, the gas ignited and an explosion occurred, severely injuring Mr. Crews; the cause of the spark was unknown.
Procedural Posture:
- On August 1, 1997, Lee James Crews and his wife, Theresa (Petitioners), filed a twenty-count complaint in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County against numerous parties (Respondents), asserting negligence and strict liability claims, along with a loss of consortium claim for Mrs. Crews.
- Excalibur Cable Communications (Respondent) filed a motion to dismiss on November 3, 1997, arguing that the doctrine of 'primary' assumption of the risk barred Petitioners' suit.
- Maryland Cable Partners, L.P. (Respondent) filed a motion for summary judgment on December 19, 1997, incorporating the legal arguments from Excalibur’s motion to dismiss.
- By order docketed February 6, 1998, the Circuit Court denied Excalibur’s motion to dismiss.
- Lee James Crews was deposed by Respondents on April 21, 1998.
- On April 23, 1998, Excalibur filed a supplemental memorandum in support of a renewed motion to dismiss or, alternatively, a motion for summary judgment, arguing for both 'primary' and conventional assumption of the risk.
- After hearing arguments on April 24, 1998, the Circuit Court granted Excalibur’s and Maryland Cable’s motions for summary judgment, as well as oral motions for summary judgment submitted by Byers, Honcho, and Hollenbach, based on the doctrine of assumption of the risk.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court’s judgment, concluding that the risk of an explosion was within the scope of dangers Mr. Crews assumed when he accepted employment as a gas leak repairman, applying 'primary' assumption of the risk.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the conventional doctrine of assumption of the risk bar a private employee, specifically a gas line repairman, from recovering damages for injuries sustained from a gas explosion while repairing a leak, when the risk of explosion is an inherent danger of their occupation, and they knew and appreciated that specific danger?
Opinions:
Majority - HARRELL, Judge
Yes, the conventional doctrine of assumption of the risk bars Lee James Crews from recovering damages because he had knowledge of the risk, appreciated the risk, and voluntarily exposed himself to it. The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the Circuit Court's grant of summary judgment, applying the long-standing common law doctrine of assumption of the risk without formally recognizing the 'primary' assumption of the risk distinction often made in other jurisdictions. The court found that assumption of the risk acts as a complete bar to a plaintiff's recovery when there is intentional and voluntary exposure to a known danger, implying consent to relieve the defendant of a duty of care. The court rejected applying the fireman's rule to Mr. Crews, as he was a privately compensated employee, and declined to create a 'private fireman's rule.' Applying the three-pronged test for assumption of the risk, the court determined: 1) Knowledge of the risk: Mr. Crews, a 20-year experienced gas line repairman, admitted he was aware of the heavy gas smell and that 'any type of gas leak or odor is always dangerous.' 2) Appreciation of the risk: Despite his subjective denials about specific ignition sources, the court applied an objective standard, noting that the risk of an explosion from a ruptured gas line is 'among the risks we will recognize as being understood by anyone of an adult age and competency.' Mr. Crews's deposition showed he knew sparks from various sources could ignite the gas and cause an explosion. 3) Voluntary exposure to the risk: The court concluded Mr. Crews voluntarily assumed the risk because the danger he encountered was 'the very danger that he accepted the risk of confronting when he became an employee of Washington Gas some twenty years earlier.' While acknowledging that economic necessity can negate voluntariness, the court found no evidence in the record beyond Mr. Crews's statement that 'it have to be worked, regardless' to suggest he was compelled to act, lacked reasonable alternatives, or faced job loss if he did not perform the repair. Thus, the risk was reasonably identifiable and inherent in his job duties.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying Maryland's adherence to the conventional, unified doctrine of assumption of the risk, explicitly declining to adopt a distinct 'primary' assumption of the risk category. It underscores that employees in dangerous private-sector occupations are generally deemed to voluntarily assume the inherent and foreseeable risks of their jobs if they have knowledge and appreciation of those risks. The ruling places a high burden on plaintiffs to demonstrate compulsion or lack of reasonable alternatives to negate the voluntariness element of assumption of the risk, potentially limiting recovery for workers injured by occupational hazards unless concrete evidence of duress is presented. This decision reinforces employer defenses in cases where an employee's injuries stem from dangers intrinsic to the accepted job duties.
