Geir Fagerhus, a marathoner, was staying at the Greenbelt Marriott Hotel where he had stayed several times before. A one and one half mile fitness trail passed though several parcels of property including the property owned by the hotel. Fagerhus had used the fitness trail three or four times previously.

When he checked into the hotel on January 28, 1998, he asked a hotel employee if the trail was open and if it was safe. During pre-trial discovery, he testified that he asked the questions because he was concerned about mugging.  The employee said the trail was safe. The next morning Fagerhus set out on a run.  He testified that he could not remember how many laps he had made but on his final lap, his feet suddenly went out from under him and he landed on his side, severely injuring his hand, shoulder, hip and leg.  He checked the surface of the trail and it was covered with that he called  "black ice" that extended over the entire width of the trail.  He had not seen this slippery condition during his run.

When he returned to the hotel, he did not tell anyone about his fall, but he went to a local emergency room, and then checked out of the hotel and flew home to Sweden.  He had surgery to his shoulder and then filed suit against the owner of the hotel property, its management company and Host Marriott Corp. which manages the hotel.  The suit alleged that the owner of the hotel property had a duty to business invitees to inspect the trail, to render it fit and safe to use, and to warn potential users of potential dangers.  The suit also alleged that the management companies negligently failed to make the trail safe, or warn Fagerhus even though they knew or should have known that the trail was not safe.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor the hotel property owner and the management companies, ruling as a matter of law that the hotel property owner and its management company enjoyed the protection of the Maryland Recreational Use Statute which protects private property owners who allow others to use their land for recreational purposes from liability for injuries arising out of such use.  The trial court also ruled that Marriott had no duty to Fagerhus because it had no ownership interest in the land where Fagerhus fell.  Fagerhus appealed to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

Fagerhus argued that the lower court erred in applying the Maryland Recreational Use Statute  (the "MRUS") to completely absolve the owner of the hotel property and its management company from liability.  The Court discussed the history and purpose of the MRUS which was originally enacted in 1966.  The MRUS provides that an owner of land who invites or permits without charge persons to use the land for recreational or educational purposes has no duty to the users.  The purpose of the statute was to encourage recreational and educational use of private lands by limiting the liability of landowners to those situations where they are compensated for the use of their property.  The Court stated:

"When a landowner permits others to use its property for unsupervised recreational activities without charge, the landowner is making available private land for public recreational purposes in precisely the manner that the MRUS is designed to encourage.  The promise of the MRUS is that when the landowner does so, it does not take on any duty to the recreational users." 

 Accordingly, the Court affirmed that summary judgment in favor of the wner of the hotel property and its management company.

 Marriott could not claim the protection of the MRUS because it had absolutely no interest in or control over the fitness trail.  The issue with regard to Marriott was whether it negligently induced Fagerhus to use the fitness trail by using it as a marketing tool, or whether it negligently misrepresented that the trail was safe.  The Court stated that Fagerhus had not provided any evidence that Marriott represented to its guests that it inspected, maintained or had accurate up to date information about the fitness trail. The Court also found that the hotel employee's statement that the trail was "safe" could not be considered a representation that the trail was free of icy conditions.  Accordingly, the Court also affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Marriott.

 Fagerhus v. Host Marriott Corporation, et al., No. 0726, September Term 2001, in the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, decided April 2, 2002.

[Return to Real Estate Update]