Defective Conditions: “Latent”, “Apparent”, and “Open and Obvious” Hazards
Published .
The general concept
A “latent” defect is hidden or not readily observable; an “apparent” condition can be seen. “Open and obvious” generally describes a condition and risk that a person exercising ordinary care would recognize. These labels can affect a Maryland premises claim, but they are not interchangeable, and visibility alone does not answer whether a property holder was negligent.
Notice and hidden conditions
For an invitee, a property holder generally must use reasonable care to discover unsafe conditions and either make them reasonably safe or provide an adequate warning. A latent hazard may be one the visitor would not discover through ordinary care, but the plaintiff still must show that the responsible defendant knew of it or, through reasonable care, should have discovered it in time to act. A hidden defect that the defendant neither knew nor reasonably could have discovered does not automatically establish liability. Evidence about inspection practices, prior complaints, repairs, duration, and who controlled the area can matter.
Visible does not always mean obvious
A condition may be visible without its danger being apparent. A step, floor transition, loose surface, or obstruction might be easy to see in one setting but hard to perceive under different lighting, from a particular approach, or amid surrounding activity. The relevant question is not just whether the physical condition could be seen; the circumstances may affect whether a reasonable person would recognize the risk.
How “open and obvious” affects a claim
Maryland decisions generally recognize that a landowner or occupier ordinarily has no duty to warn an invitee of an open, obvious, and present danger. The doctrine may also affect whether reasonable care required the defendant to correct or guard against the condition. Separately, the defendant may argue that the injured person was contributorily negligent or assumed a known risk. Those defenses have distinct elements; an open-and-obvious characterization does not automatically prove either one, and the court considers the evidence and circumstances.
Useful evidence can include photographs and video from the visitor’s viewpoint, lighting and weather conditions, measurements, warnings or barriers, inspection and repair records, prior incidents, witness accounts, and evidence of what the visitor knew. In Maryland, contributory negligence can bar a negligence recovery if established, so the facts about both the condition and the person’s conduct can be important.
Related Maryland Cases and Authorities
Wagner v. Doehring, 315 Md. 97 (1989); Tennant v. Shoppers Food Warehouse Md. Corp., 115 Md. App. 381, 693 A.2d 370 (1997); Warsham v. Muscatello, 189 Md. App. 620 (2009); Six Flags America, L.P. v. Gonzalez-Perdomo, 248 Md. App. 569, 242 A.3d 114 (2020).