The Maryland Court of Special Appeals recently ruled in the case of Ashley Moore v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., et al. (No. 371, Sept. Term, 2025), which addresses premises liability and the duty of store owners to protect customers from foreseeable dangers. The court's decision, issued on May 29, 2026, overturned a lower court's summary judgment in favor of CVS Pharmacy and its associated entities, allowing Moore's claims to proceed.
This ruling is significant as it clarifies the responsibilities of store owners in ensuring the safety of their premises, particularly regarding the actions of customers that may pose risks to others. The outcome could influence similar cases in the future, especially those involving injuries caused by negligence in retail environments.
Background
Ashley Moore was injured on December 10, 2019, when another customer, Maria Belfort, drove her vehicle into the entrance of a CVS Pharmacy located in Salisbury, Maryland. Moore was walking through the store's sliding glass doors when the vehicle crashed through, resulting in severe injuries that required surgery. The incident raised questions about the safety of the store's parking lot layout, which lacked protective barriers near the entrance.
Moore filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on September 26, 2022, alleging negligence against Belfort, as well as premises liability against CVS Pharmacy, CVS 8281 MD, LLC, and Clairmont Center, LLC. She claimed that the store owners failed to maintain a safe environment by not installing bollards or other protective devices to prevent vehicles from crashing into the store entrance. The case was later transferred to the Circuit Court for Wicomico County.
During the discovery phase, expert testimonies supported Moore's claims, indicating that the parking layout violated standard safety principles. Despite this, the Circuit Court granted summary judgment to CVS Pharmacy and Maryland CVS, ruling that there were no genuine disputes of material fact regarding their liability.
The Ruling
The Court of Special Appeals ruled that the lower court erred in granting summary judgment. The opinion, authored by Judge Arthur, emphasized that a storekeeper has a duty to protect invitees from foreseeable dangers, including those posed by other customers. The court stated, "A storekeeper may have an obligation to use reasonable care to protect invitees against dangers caused by negligent acts of other invitees if a reasonably prudent person should have anticipated the possible occurrence and the probable results of those acts."
Furthermore, the court highlighted that the evidence presented could lead a factfinder to conclude that the store layout created an unreasonable risk of harm. The court noted, "The store proprietor was not entitled to summary judgment merely because no similar incidents had occurred at the same store or at certain other nearby stores." This ruling allows Moore's case to proceed to trial, where the issues of proximate cause and foreseeability will be determined.
Impact
The court's decision has significant implications for premises liability cases in Maryland and potentially beyond. It reinforces the idea that store owners must take reasonable precautions to protect customers from foreseeable risks, even if those risks arise from the actions of other patrons. This ruling could set a precedent for future cases where injuries occur due to negligent behavior in retail environments.
Additionally, the ruling emphasizes the importance of thorough discovery processes in litigation. The court acknowledged that the plaintiff's ability to gather evidence was hindered by the defendants' failure to respond to discovery requests. This aspect of the ruling could encourage more transparency and cooperation in future legal proceedings.
What's Next
Following the Court of Special Appeals' ruling, the case will return to the lower court for further proceedings. The defendants may still seek to appeal the decision, but as it stands, Moore's claims against CVS Pharmacy and Maryland CVS will move forward. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the court filing.