eNotes: Liability – November 2023 – Maryland

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Maryland Case Summary

Blitzer v. Breski
Maryland Appellate Court
2023 Md. App. LEXIS 648

Decided: September 27, 2023

Plaintiff can be awarded $132,322.00 for injuries sustained from a dog bite while the dog was running at large. The Appellate Court unanimously found the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in upholding the jury’s verdict, nor did it deem the jury award grossly excessive or shocking.

Background

Plaintiff filed an action in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against Defendants Emily Blitzer and Julie Colin after Plaintiff was bitten by the Defendants’ dog. Plaintiff was bitten on the leg by Defendants’ German Shepard, with her injuries requiring medical treatment. Plaintiff based her Complaint on § 3-1901 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Maryland Code, which imposes strict liability on dog owners for personal injury or death caused by a dog while the dog is “running at large.” Running at large is not defined by the statute. At the conclusion of the jury trial, Plaintiff moved for a directed verdict on the strict liability claim, which was granted by the Trial Court. Plaintiff was awarded damages of $132,322.00.

Defendants thereafter filed a Motion for a new trial, arguing that the jury’s award was excessive. The Court denied the Motion, and this appeal followed.

Holding

The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the Trial Court’s decision and held that the dog was “running at large” at the time of the bite. The Appellate Court of Maryland held that the plain meaning of “running at large” is best defined as free, unrestrained, or not under control. As § 3-1901 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article contained an exception that exempts an owner from liability for a dog bite if the person bit was in the process of committing or attempting to commit a trespass or other criminal offense on the property of the owner, the Appellate Court of Maryland held that a dog could be “running at large” even while on its owner’s property. As the dog in question was free, unrestrained, and not under control in the area between Defendants’ and Plaintiff’s home at the time of the bite, the Court reviewed the $132,322.00 award and, after considering the Plaintiff’s injuries, determined that the award was not excessive.

Questions about this case can be directed to Lucas Duty at (443) 641-0572 or lduty@tthlaw.com.