Lola Ziadie V Costco Wholesale Corporation

Key Facts

Issues

• Costco's motion for summary judgment is granted because Ziadie failed to establish that the sidewalk height difference constituted an unreasonable risk or hidden defect, and the court found no unexpected distractions to excuse her failure to exercise ordinary care.
• Plaintiff Lola Ziadie's motion for leave to file an opposition out of time to Costco's motion for summary judgment is granted due to a minor nine-day delay and lack of prejudice to the defendant, despite Costco's argument that the delay was not excusable.

Holdings

• The court granted Ziadie's motion for leave to file an opposition to Costco's motion for summary judgment out of time. The delay of nine days was deemed minor, and Costco did not demonstrate prejudice from the late filing. The court found that the delay was attributable to counsel's heavy workload and, given the lack of significant prejudice or bad faith, allowed the late response.
• The court granted Costco's motion for summary judgment. It determined that the height difference between the sidewalk and parking lot was not an unreasonable risk under Maryland law and was open and obvious. Ziadie failed to provide evidence of a hidden defect or unexpected distraction to excuse her failure to notice the height difference. Additionally, Ziadie's own testimony and the photographic evidence supported the conclusion that she did not exercise ordinary care for her safety.

Remedies

• The Court granted Plaintiff Lola Ziadie's motion for leave to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment out of time, allowing her to submit her response nine days after the deadline.
• The Court granted Costco Wholesale Corporation's motion for summary judgment, concluding that there was no genuine dispute of material fact and that the defendant was not negligent under Maryland law.

Legal Principles

• The court held that the plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proof under summary judgment by not showing a genuine dispute of material fact regarding negligence.
• The court found that the defendant did not breach its duty because the height difference between the sidewalk and parking lot was not an unreasonable risk and was open and obvious.
• The court applied the lex loci delicti rule, determining that Maryland law governs the case since the injury occurred in Maryland.
• The court applied the principle that a store owner must exercise reasonable care to protect business invitees from unreasonable risks that they are unlikely to perceive. In this case, the owner owed a duty to the plaintiff as a business invitee.

Precedent Name

• Beach v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
• Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
• Burnside v. Wong
• Rybas v. Riverview Hotel Corp.
• Schaefer v. United States
• Gellerman v. Shawan Rd. Hotel Ltd. P'ship

Cited Statute

Judge Name

Passage Text

• "It is well settled that uneven ground surface generally does not amount to an 'unreasonable risk,' because pedestrians customarily and ordinarily expect to encounter such variations in terrain."
• "The presence of the trash can on the sidewalk and the presence of other pedestrians on the sidewalk is neither unexpected nor beyond the miscellany of activity normally found on public walkways."
• "To assert a claim in negligence, the plaintiff must prove: (1) that the defendant was under a duty to protect the plaintiff from injury, (2) that the defendant breached that duty, (3) that the plaintiff suffered actual injury or loss, and (4) that the loss or injury proximately resulted from the defendant's breach of the duty."