Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Murphy v. Baltimore Gas & Electric Co.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided May 14, 1981No. [No. 59, September Term, 1980.] [No. 87, September Term, 1980.]Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

*196 Davidson, J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

In these cases, both of which deal with the status of injured parties who were trespassers, the majority refuses to abolish the common law distinctions in a landowner’s or occupier’s duty toward an invitee, licensee, or trespasser. Consequently, the majority refuses to apply the traditional principles of negligence, including the standard of reasonable care under all the circumstances, to trespassers. I respectfully dissent.

As long ago as 1959, the United States Supreme Court recognized the decreasing viability of the common law approach…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Basso v. MillerNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
  2. Rowland v. ChristianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  3. Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale TransatlantiqueSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  4. Mounsey v. EllardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1973
  5. Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1976

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API