SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARY

Maryland Case Summary

Moore v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., et al.
Maryland Appellate Court
No. 371, Sept. Term, 2025

Decided: May 29, 2026

Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment because sufficient evidence existed from which a reasonable fact finder could conclude that the store’s parking lot design contributed to plaintiff’s injuries and that the resulting harm was foreseeable.

Background

Plaintiff was struck by the vehicle of another customer as it crashed through the entrance doors of a Salisbury CVS Store. The CVS Store parking lot design includes rows of parking spaces that face the building, including the entrance doors. The parking spaces reserved for persons with physical disabilities have safety bollards. However, the unreserved parking spaces do not have safety bollards but rather wheel stops approximately six inches high. Unlike safety bollards, wheel stops are designed only to indicate the boundary of a parking space and are not intended to prevent or impede fast-moving vehicles. The customer operating the vehicle that crashed into the CVS Store was utilizing one of the unreserved parking spaces that had only wheel stops.

Plaintiff filed suit in the Circuit Court, Maryland’s trial court. She brought claims against several defendants, notably, negligence and premises liability against Maryland CVS and CVS Pharmacy. CVS Pharmacy asserted it was merely the parent corporation of Maryland CVS and did not operate, maintain, or control the CVS Store. Maryland CVS admitted that it leases, operates, and maintains the CVS Store. However, it asserted that it did not have actual or constructive knowledge or notice of a dangerous condition based on the lack of evidence of similar accidents at relevant CVS stores, and lack of evidence that any relevant CVS store had been advised to protect against such accidents. The Circuit Court granted summary judgment to CVS Pharmacy and Maryland CVS. Plaintiff moved for reconsideration, which was denied. Plaintiff appealed.

Holding

The Appellate Court held that the Circuit Court erred in granting summary judgment. It reasoned there was sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable fact finder to conclude that Maryland CVS knew or could have discovered that the parking lot design created an unreasonable risk of harm to customers. Foreseeability of this risk does not require proof that the same type of accident occurred at the same location. Plaintiff presented expert testimony demonstrating that the design did not align with industry standards, and that accidents of this nature were a known hazard within the retail industry and had occurred at other CVS locations. Further, the Appellate Court found that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether CVS Pharmacy operated or managed the CVS Store and that this fact should be decided by the fact finder.

Questions about this case can be directed to Veronica Giron at (443) 641-0557 or vgiron@tthlaw.com.