Marrick Homes LLC v. Rutkowski
2017 WL 2361821
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2017Background
- In 2005 Marrick Homes (general contractor) built a house; Creative Trim (subcontractor) installed an exterior guardrail outside a sliding door; finishing nails concealed by trim were used to attach the rail.
- The Smiths (original owners) lived in the home ~7 years; appellees Rutkowski and Mastropole purchased it in 2012.
- About two months after purchase (Nov. 11, 2012) Rutkowski leaned on the guardrail to shake a mat; the rail failed and he fell ~12–13 feet, sustaining severe injuries.
- Plaintiffs sued Marrick (and others); all non-Marrick defendants were dismissed pretrial; trial proceeded against Marrick and the jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs.
- Trial evidence: experts testified the rail was attached with non‑structural finishing nails and could not meet the 200‑lb lateral load required by the building code; Marrick defended on delegation, lapse of time, contributory negligence/assumption of risk, and disputed causation.
- Trial court denied Marrick’s JMOL motions; damages were reduced by statutory cap; on appeal the Court of Special Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether a general contractor owes a nondelegable duty to comply with building code provisions | Gardenvillage/Restatement §424 support that the duty to follow safety‑oriented building code provisions is nondelegable and Marrick (as GC) had statutory duty | Marrick: nondelegable duty applies only to owners/developers, not general contractors who subcontract work | Held: §424 and cases apply to general contractors; Marrick can be liable for subcontractor’s code violations that cause injury |
| 2. Whether evidence was sufficient that Marrick was negligent in construction/supervision of the railing | Marrick failed to inspect/supervise Creative Trim; GC has duty to supervise subcontractors and to ensure code compliance | Marrick: Creative Trim controlled methods; long subcontract relationship made close supervision unnecessary; expert disputed failure theory | Held: Sufficient evidence for jury — expert testimony showed finishing nails caused failure and GC had right to control/supervise; reasonable factfinder could find breach |
| 3. Whether causation exists when injury occurred ~7 years after construction | Plaintiffs: expert testimony linked finishing‑nail fastening to point of failure; causation not defeated by passage of time | Marrick: lapse of seven years severs causal link; would require speculation | Held: Passage of time alone does not preclude causation; expert proof connecting construction defect to failure was sufficient to submit causation to jury |
| 4. Whether plaintiff assumed the risk or was contributorily negligent as a matter of law | Plaintiffs: Rutkowski reasonably assumed the railing was properly built and had no reason to suspect hidden defects; appearance and trim concealed nails | Marrick: Rutkowski knew a fall could injure him and failed to inspect or test the rail before leaning on it | Held: Both assumption of risk and contributory negligence were jury issues; neither defense warranted JMOL because facts did not show voluntary exposure to a known danger or decisive negligence as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Gardenvillage Realty Corp. v. Russo, 34 Md. App. 25 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.) (building code can impose a nondelegable statutory duty on owner/permit holder)
- Council of Co-Owners Atlantis Condo., Inc. v. Whiting-Turner Contracting Co., 308 Md. 18 (Md. 1986) (statutory building‑code duties intended as safety measures are nondelegable)
- Brady v. Ralph M. Parsons Co., 327 Md. 275 (Md. 1992) (distinguishes contractual safety‑monitor duties from statutory nondelegable duties)
- Peterson v. Underwood, 258 Md. 9 (Md. 1970) (insufficient causation where no evidence connected negligent construction to collapse years later)
- Rowley v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 305 Md. 456 (Md. 1986) (discusses general rule that employer of an independent contractor is not ordinarily liable and the common-law exceptions)