eNotes: Liability – April 2023 – Maryland

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Maryland Case Summary

Mitchell v. Rite Aid of Md., Inc.
Maryland Appellate Court
No. 21, September Term, 2022

Decided: March 2, 2023

The Appellate Court of Maryland holds that a possessor of property was entitled to summary judgment on a premises liability count in a mass shooting case because the shooting was not reasonably foreseeable, and Plaintiffs failed to establish a causal link between the alleged failure to provide security and the Plaintiffs’ injuries.

Background

Rite Aid possesses and operates a distribution facility in Aberdeen, Maryland. In 2018, Snochia Moseley was employed with Abacus Staffing, a company which provided additional staffing for Rite Aid’s facility. On September 20, 2018, Moseley reportedly agitated other workers when she cut the line to check in for work. Moseley left work and returned later with a handgun. She entered the Rite Aid distribution center’s perimeter gate using her access badge. After entering the facility, Moseley shot a number of workers at the facility. Plaintiffs, employees of Capstone Logistics, suffered injuries as a result of the shooting. There was no history of violent criminal activity in the vicinity of the Rite Aid facility, and no prior indication that Moseley posed a threat of violence.

Plaintiffs filed suit against Rite Aid in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, alleging that Rite Aid breached its duty of providing adequate protection for workers on the premises by failing to staff adequate security personnel to prevent the shooting. At the close of discovery, Rite Aid moved for summary judgment on a number of grounds. Among other things, Rite Aid argued that it was entitled to judgment because Plaintiffs could not establish that the shooting was reasonably foreseeable under the circumstances. In addition, Rite Aid argued that Plaintiffs could not establish a causal link between the alleged failure to provide security and the shooting. The Circuit Court agreed and granted Rite Aid’s Motion for summary judgment. The Circuit Court found that Plaintiffs could not establish foreseeability or causation. Plaintiffs appealed to Maryland’s intermediate appellate court, the Appellate Court of Maryland.

Holding

The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the decision of the Circuit Court. The Appellate Court found that the Circuit Court was correct in concluding that Rite Aid had no duty to provide heightened security to prevent a mass shooting. In particular, the Appellate Court concluded that Plaintiffs failed to establish the element of duty because the shooting was not reasonably foreseeable in light of the following facts: (1) there was no history of violent criminal activity in the vicinity of the facility; (2) there was no indication that Moseley posed a threat of violence; and (3) the events leading up to the shooting did not indicate an imminent violent outburst. The Appellate Court also agreed with the Circuit Court that Plaintiffs failed to establish a causal link between the alleged failure to provide heightened security and the shooting. The Appellate Court found that the evidence established that Moseley would have gained access to the building with her ID badge regardless of the extra security measures suggested by the Plaintiffs.

Questions about this case can be directed to Andrew White at (443) 641-0572 or awhite@tthlaw.com.