Schroyer v. McNeal
592 A.2d 1119 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff assumes the risk of injury, barring recovery from a defendant, when they have full knowledge and appreciation of a danger and voluntarily choose to encounter that risk, thereby relieving the defendant of any duty of care.
Facts:
- On January 9, 1985, Frances C. McNeal arrived at the Grantsville Holiday Inn, owned by Thomas and Patricia Schroyer, during inclement weather.
- The hotel parking lot was covered in approximately four inches of sleet and ice, except for the area directly in front of the main lobby.
- McNeal registered and requested a room close to an exit for convenience in carrying boxes, and was assigned a room near the west side entrance.
- She drove her car from the cleared main entrance to the west entrance, parking on packed ice and snow about ten to fifteen feet from the door.
- McNeal observed that the area where she parked and the nearby sidewalk were unshoveled and slippery.
- She successfully made one trip from her car to her room across the ice and snow, carrying her cat.
- On her return trip to the car to retrieve more belongings, McNeal slipped on the ice and fell, sustaining a broken ankle.
Procedural Posture:
- Frances C. McNeal sued Thomas and Patricia Schroyer for negligence in the Circuit Court for Garrett County (a trial court).
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of McNeal for $50,000.00.
- The trial court denied the Schroyers' post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.
- The Schroyers, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the issue of McNeal's contributory negligence was properly submitted to the jury.
- The Schroyers petitioned the Court of Appeals of Maryland (the state's highest court) for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 a hotel guest assume the risk of injury as a matter of law when she voluntarily chooses to walk across a parking lot that she knows is covered in ice and snow?
Opinions:
Majority - Bell, J.
Yes. A person assumes the risk of injury when they intentionally expose themselves to a known danger. McNeal had full knowledge that the parking lot was covered in ice and snow and was aware that it was slippery. Despite this knowledge and appreciation of the risk, she voluntarily chose to park on and walk across the hazardous surface for her own convenience in unloading her belongings. This voluntary choice to take an informed chance superseded any duty the Schroyers owed her, thus barring her recovery. The doctrine of assumption of risk is distinct from contributory negligence; while the reasonableness of her actions might be a jury question for contributory negligence, her voluntary decision to encounter a known risk is sufficient to establish assumption of risk as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces and clarifies the distinction between the defenses of assumption of risk and contributory negligence in Maryland law. It establishes that a plaintiff can be barred from recovery by assuming a known risk even if they acted reasonably and carefully while encountering that risk. The ruling strengthens the position of defendants in premises liability cases, particularly those involving obvious, naturally occurring hazards like ice and snow. It demonstrates that where a plaintiff has subjective knowledge of a specific danger and voluntarily confronts it, the court may find assumption of risk as a matter of law, taking the decision away from the jury.
Unlock the full brief for Schroyer v. McNeal