Macias v. Summit Management, 220 A.3d 363

On July 6, 2013, eight-year-old Damien Macias and his younger brother climbed a five-foot stone "community sign" in the common area of Waters House Condominium (managed by Summit); a flat stone dislodged, fell on Damien, and caused serious injuries.
The Macias family (frequent visitors to Damien’s grandparents’ unit) and the boys had climbed/played on or near the sign on prior occasions; there were no signs, fences, or visible defects around the sign and no prior reported injuries from it.
Plaintiffs sued the condominium Council of Unit Owners and Summit Management for negligence (including an attractive-nuisance theory at an earlier stage). Discovery produced depositions and photos; no evidence of prior notice to defendants of a defect was developed.
The circuit court granted summary judgment for defendants, treating Damien as a bare licensee and alternatively finding no actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition.
The Court of Special Appeals held (1) Damien was an invitee while on common grounds (condo associations owe invitees a landlord-like duty in common areas), but (2) affirmed summary judgment because plaintiffs produced no evidence that defendants had actual or constructive knowledge of the defective/unsafe condition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Legal status while on sign	Damien was an invitee as a guest of a unit owner and by implied invitation to use common areas	He was at most a social guest or became a bare licensee/trespasser when he climbed the sign	Damien was an invitee on the common grounds; climbing the sign did not automatically convert status to trespasser
Duty owed by condominium association	Council/Summit owed invitee-level (landlord-like) duty in common areas to unit owners and guests	If Damien was not an invitee, only duty to refrain from willful/wanton conduct applied	Condo association owes invitee-level duty to owners and guests in common areas under Maryland law
Whether climbing the sign revoked invitee status	Climbing a climbable structure in an area where children customarily play did not change status	Climbing a non-play structure removed any invitation, making him a bare licensee/trespasser	Mere act of climbing a climbable sign in an area where he was allowed to be did not convert invitee into trespasser
Notice / sufficiency to survive summary judgment	Plaintiffs argued foreseeability and lack of warnings/barricades supported liability	Defendants showed no evidence they knew or should have known of any defect; no prior incidents or visible problem	Summary judgment affirmed: plaintiffs produced no evidence of actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition, so no breach of duty was shown

Hansberger v. Smith, 229 Md. App. 1 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2016) (summary judgment appropriate when historical facts undisputed and no notice shown)
Kennedy Krieger Inst., Inc. v. Partlow, 460 Md. 607 (Md. 2018) (foreseeability is principal consideration for duty in negligence)
Bramble v. Thompson, 264 Md. 518 (Md. 1972) (duty to social guests/licensees: know condition, warn or make safe)
Deering Woods Condo. Ass’n v. Spoon, 377 Md. 250 (Md. 2003) (landowner liable to invitees only with actual or constructive knowledge of condition)
Levine v. Miller, 218 Md. 74 (Md. 1958) (entrant’s status can change by time/location; restricted-area reentry may negate invitee status)
Barnes v. Housing Auth. of Balt. City, 231 Md. 147 (Md. 1963) (no invitation to use adjacent unpaved area; entrant ceased to be invitee)
Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Flippo, 348 Md. 680 (Md. 1998) (licensee-by-invitation found where utility should have foreseen children climbing trees near its lines)
Pratt v. Maryland Farms Condo. Phase 1, Inc., 42 Md. App. 632 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1979) (concrete evidence of children playing and owner knowledge can support liability for hazards in common areas)
Paquin v. McGinnis, 246 Md. 569 (Md. 1967) (adopting Restatement approach to social-guest liability)
Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co., 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928) (foreseeability limits duty and proximate cause)