Facts
- Frances C. McNeal, a hotel guest, arrived on January 9, 1985, at the Grantsville Holiday Inn in Garrett County, Maryland, during weather conditions involving significant sleet and snow.
- The area near the hotel’s main entrance had been cleared, but the parking lot had not been cleared.
- McNeal requested a room near an exit for moving work materials and was assigned a room near the west side entrance.
- Hotel personnel did not warn McNeal not to use the west entrance in inclement weather, and no warning signs were posted.
- McNeal parked about 10–15 feet from the west entrance and observed packed snow and ice around her car; she noted it was slippery and that the sidewalk near the entrance was not shoveled.
- McNeal successfully walked from her car to the west entrance once, then returned toward her car for additional belongings and slipped and fell on the second trip, suffering a broken ankle.
- McNeal sued the hotel owners/operators, Thomas Edward Schroyer and Patricia A. Schroyer, alleging negligent maintenance and failure to warn.
Issues
- Whether the evidence required a ruling, as a matter of law, that McNeal assumed the risk by voluntarily traversing an obviously icy and snowy parking lot and sidewalk, thereby barring recovery.
- Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendants’ motions for judgment based on assumption of risk.
Decision
- The jury returned a $50,000 verdict for McNeal, and the trial court denied the Schroyers’ post-trial motions.
- The intermediate appellate court affirmed without specifically resolving assumption of risk.
- The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed and directed entry of judgment for the Schroyers.
- The court held that McNeal assumed the risk as a matter of law and, on that basis, did not reach other negligence-related issues.
Legal Principles
- Assumption of risk is established when the plaintiff (1) knew of the risk, (2) appreciated the risk, and (3) voluntarily confronted the risk.
- Assumption of risk may be decided as a matter of law when the undisputed evidence and permissible inferences clearly establish all elements.
- Assumption of risk differs from contributory negligence: it rests on intentional exposure to a known danger, not merely unreasonable self-protective conduct.
- When a plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily confronts a danger, the plaintiff’s consent to the risk negates or supersedes any duty the defendant would otherwise owe regarding that risk.
- A defendant preserves an assumption-of-risk argument for review by making timely motions for judgment; the absence of a jury instruction on the defense does not defeat preservation when the appeal concerns denial of judgment motions.
Conclusion
Because McNeal observed and understood the obvious icy and snowy conditions, successfully crossed the same area once, and then chose to traverse it again, the court held she voluntarily accepted the danger and assumed the risk as a matter of law, requiring judgment for the hotel owners.