Ashley Moore v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., et al.

Summary

The Appellate Court of Maryland held that genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment in a premises-liability action arising after a vehicle crashed through a CVS pharmacy entrance and injured a customer. The court concluded that foreseeability of vehicle-related harm and the store operator’s notice could be determined by a factfinder based on the parking-lot layout, expert testimony, and evidence of similar incidents at other CVS locations. The court also held that conflicting evidence regarding the parent corporation’s operational and managerial role created a factual dispute, reversed the summary judgment rulings, and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. Maryland CVS was not entitled to summary judgment because the evidence could support a finding that the parking-space and entrance arrangement was an unsafe condition, that the general class of harm was reasonably foreseeable, and that the condition could reasonably have been prevented or guarded against.
2. The absence of prior vehicle crashes at the same store or at certain nearby stores did not entitle Maryland CVS to summary judgment.
3. CVS Pharmacy was not entitled to summary judgment because the evidence, viewed favorably to Moore, created a genuine dispute about whether CVS Pharmacy operated, managed, or controlled the Salisbury store.
4. Moore could pursue the theory that CVS Pharmacy operated and managed the store as Maryland CVS's agent; the theory did not introduce a new cause of action or become time-barred.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Maryland CVS was entitled to summary judgment because there was no evidence that it knew or should have known that the parking-space and entrance configuration presented an unreasonable risk of harm to invitees.
2. Whether the absence of prior similar crashes at the Salisbury store or nearby stores compelled summary judgment on foreseeability and notice.
3. Whether CVS Pharmacy was entitled to summary judgment because it did not own, operate, manage, or control the Salisbury store.
4. Whether the evidence concerning the agency agreement and CVS Pharmacy's management and maintenance functions created a genuine dispute of material fact.
5. Whether Moore's theory that CVS Pharmacy operated or managed the store as Maryland CVS's agent was barred by pleading or statute-of-limitations principles.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded