Maans v. Giant of Maryland, L.L.C.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• reasoning that the mode-of-operation rule is at odds with caselaw in Maryland as the approach does not require the invitee to provide time on the floor evidence
• collecting cases for Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming
• affirming trial court’s grant of a motion for judgment in store’s favor given the absence of such evidence at trial
• affirming trial court’s grant of a motion for judgment in store’s favor given the absence of such evidence at trial
• rejecting the proposition that a jury can infer constructive notice from an alleged failure to conduct reasonable inspections
• rejecting the proposition that a plaintiff need not prove notice if the proprietor could reasonably anticipate that hazardous conditions would regularly arise because of the manner in which the owner or occupier regularly does business

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).