Kimberly Booker v. Peterson Companies
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:09-cv-02144-RWT Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998532381] [10-1204]
Kimberly Booker v. Peterson Companies
Doc. 0
Case: 10-1204
Document: 26
Date Filed: 02/25/2011
Page: 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1204
KIMBERLY A. BOOKER, Individually and as personal representative of the estate of her deceased son, Alexander Lance Booker; ALPHONSO BOOKER, III, individually, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. PETERSON COMPANIES, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:09cv-02144-RWT)
Submitted:
January 13, 2011
Decided:
February 25, 2011
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patrick M. Regan, REGAN, ZAMBRI & LONG, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Ryan K. Bautz, ANDERSON, COE & KING, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Timothy F. Maloney, JOSEPH GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A., Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Dockets.Justia.com
Case: 10-1204
Document: 26
Date Filed: 02/25/2011
Page: 2
PER CURIAM: Kimberly A. Booker, individually and as a personal
representative of the estate of her deceased son, Alexander L. Booker, district and her husband, order Alphonso Booker, III, appeal the
court's
granting
Defendant
Peterson
Companies'
("Peterson") motion for judgment on the pleadings. We review "a district court's
We affirm. to grant
decision
judgment on the pleadings de novo, applying the same standard for Rule 12(c) motions as for motions made pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)." Burbach Broad. Co. of Delaware v. Elkins Radio
Corp., 278 F.3d 401, 405-06 (4th Cir. 2002).
We accept as true
the factual allegations contained in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiffs below. Id. In
order to survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the complaint must contain sufficient facts "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level" and "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007). Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
A federal court sitting in diversity
jurisdiction must apply the substantive law of the forum state. Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938); Colgan Air, Inc. v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 507 F.3d 270, 275 (4th Cir.
2007).
It is undisputed that Maryland state law is applicable
to this case.
2
Case: 10-1204
Document: 26
Date Filed: 02/25/2011
Page: 3
In negligence actions under Maryland law, "the duty or standard of care owed to a person by an owner or occupier of land is determined by that person's purpose for being on the property." App. 1998). Wells v. Polland, 708 A.2d 34, 39 (Md. Ct. Spec. While the highest duty is owed to invitees, "a
trespasser, even one of tender years, takes the property as he finds it and is owed no duty by the owner except that he may not be willfully or wantonly injured or entrapped by the owner once his presence is known." Educ., 336 A.2d 795, Fitzgerald v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of 797 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1975). This
limitation of a landowner's liability to a trespasser "permits a person to use his own land in his own way, without the burden of watching for and protecting those who come there without
permission or right." marks omitted). Here,
Wells, 708 A.2d at 40 (internal quotation
Appellants
concede
that,
at
the
time
of
the
tragic accident that led to Alexander's death, Alexander was a trespasser onto Peterson's property. Accordingly, Peterson only
owed him the duty to refrain from willfully or wantonly injuring or entrapping him once his presence became known. Though
Appellants characterize the alteration of the ignition system of an all-terrain vehicle as willful and wanton behavior, such a characterization contravenes Maryland precedent. Under Maryland
law, "[w]illful misconduct is performed with the actor's actual 3
Case: 10-1204
Document: 26
Date Filed: 02/25/2011
Page: 4
knowledge or with what the law deems the equivalent to actual knowledge of the peril to be apprehended, coupled with a
conscious failure to avert injury." Similarly, "a wanton act is one
Wells, 708 A.2d at 44. performed with reckless
indifference to its potential injurious consequences[; t]he term . . . generally denotes conduct that is extremely dangerous and outrageous, in reckless disregard for the rights of others." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "A land
owner does not have a duty to make the land safe for trespassers or to warn trespassers of any potential dangers that may lie therein." Id. at 45. Appellants request this court to "bravely carve out an exception" to Maryland law due to the tragic circumstances of this case. The function of federal courts sitting in diversity,
however, "is to ascertain and apply the law of a State as it exists [and] not [to] create or expand that State's public
policy."
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Jacobson, 48 F.3d Therefore, we decline Appellants'
778, 783 (4th Cir. 1995).
invitation to rewrite Maryland law. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately presented in the materials
4
Case: 10-1204
Document: 26
Date Filed: 02/25/2011
Page: 5
before
the
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional
process. AFFIRMED
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?