Zilichikhis v. Montgomery County
115 A.3d 685
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2015Background
- Zilichikhis slipped and fell inside Garage 49, a Montgomery County garage beneath the Metropolitan Apartments.
- Garage 49 is owned and operated by Montgomery County as part of the Bethesda Parking Lot District.
- Plaintiffs alleged the fall was caused by a wet, greasy oil spill; they claimed the County or others had notice of the hazard.
- Defendants included Montgomery County, Penn Parking, Inc., and Colossal Contractors, Inc.; the Department of Transportation was later dismissed.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment finding no admissible evidence of notice or governmental immunity; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed.
- On appeal, the court addressed whether the location of the fall, notoriety of the spill, and the County’s immunity supported judgment as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Location of the accident | Zilichikhis argued the fall occurred on a walking path, not a parking space | Record establishes the fall in a parking space | No genuine dispute; fall occurred in a parking space |
| Admissibility of photographs and expert testimony | Photographs and Dr. Andrews’ duration assessment should be admissible | Photographs lacked foundation; expert relied on inadmissible basis | Photographs and expert rejected for lack of proper foundation |
| Constructive knowledge of the hazard | Evidence shows recurring oil spills; constructive notice possible | No admissible evidence of duration or notice at the specific spot | No genuine dispute; lack of pre-injury notice at the site |
| Governmental immunity for the parking garage | Garage 49 may be a public walkway; immunity should not apply | Garage operation deemed governmental; immunity applies | County entitled to governmental immunity; no exception shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Maans v. Giant of Maryland, L.L.C., 161 Md. App. 620 (2005) (no constructive notice without time-on-floor evidence; mode-of-operation rejected)
- Joseph v. Bozzuto Mgmt. Co., 173 Md. App. 305 (2007) (premises liability requires actual or constructive knowledge and time to remedy)
- Rehn v. Westfield America, 153 Md. App. 586 (2003) (notice requires time for defendant to remove or warn of hazard)
- Lexington Market Auth. v. Zappala, 233 Md. 444 (1964) (oil/grease on floor insufficient to prove notice without duration evidence)
- Bagheri v. Montgomery County, 180 Md. App. 93 (2008) (parking garage immunity analyzed; parking districts and profits considered)