The Maryland Court of Special Appeals recently ruled in favor of Lakisha DeVaughn, allowing her negligence claim against StoneMor Partners, L.P. to proceed. This decision came after DeVaughn sustained injuries while visiting her son’s gravesite at Lincoln Memorial Cemetery in Suitland, Maryland. The court found that the lower court had incorrectly applied the law regarding premises liability, which affects how recreational areas, including cemeteries, are treated under Maryland law.
This ruling is significant as it clarifies how the Recreational Use Statute applies to cemeteries and similar venues. It highlights the responsibilities of landowners to maintain safe conditions for visitors, particularly when those visitors are not simply there for recreational purposes.
Background
The case, DeVaughn v. StoneMor Partners, L.P., No. 578, was filed in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. Lakisha DeVaughn filed her complaint against StoneMor in November 2024, alleging that she tripped in a ditch while visiting her son’s gravesite on April 18, 2024. DeVaughn claimed that the cemetery was poorly maintained, leading to her injury.
StoneMor Partners, L.P. owns and operates Lincoln Memorial Cemetery and advertises it as a historical venue. DeVaughn argued that the company had a duty to ensure the safety of the cemetery grounds, especially since it is open to the public. StoneMor countered that under Maryland’s Recreational Use Statute, it owed no duty to maintain the cemetery for visitors who enter without charge.
The circuit court initially dismissed DeVaughn’s complaint due to her failure to respond to StoneMor’s motion to dismiss. After filing a motion to reconsider, which was also denied, DeVaughn appealed the decision, arguing that the lower court had misapplied the law regarding the Recreational Use Statute.
The Ruling
The Court of Special Appeals, led by Judge Nazarian, reversed the lower court's decision, stating that the circuit court had abused its discretion. The court emphasized that the Recreational Use Statute should not automatically shield landowners from liability without a proper examination of the circumstances surrounding the injury.
The court ruled, "the circuit court must determine first that the area of the cemetery where the plaintiff was injured is one that the owner intended to be used primarily for recreational or educational—not commercial—purposes."
This ruling indicates that the court must consider not just the nature of the visit but also the specific area of the cemetery where the injury occurred. The court noted that the Recreational Use Statute limits liability for injuries only if the area is intended for recreational or educational use.
Impact
This decision has important implications for how cemeteries and other similar venues are treated under Maryland law. It sets a precedent that landowners cannot simply claim immunity under the Recreational Use Statute without demonstrating that the area was intended for recreational purposes. This ruling could lead to increased scrutiny of premises liability cases involving public access areas, particularly in locations like cemeteries where the purpose of visits may vary.
Going forward, this ruling may encourage other individuals who have been injured in similar circumstances to pursue claims against landowners if they believe that safety standards have not been met. It reinforces the idea that landowners have a responsibility to maintain safe conditions, especially in areas frequented by the public.
What's Next
The case has been remanded to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County for further proceedings. The court will need to apply the new standard established in this ruling to determine whether the Recreational Use Statute applies to DeVaughn’s claim. It remains to be seen if StoneMor will appeal this decision or if there are any related cases pending.