SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARY

Maryland Case Summary

Lakisha DeVaughn v. StoneMor Partners, L.P.
Maryland Appellate Court
No. 578, Sept. Term, 2025

Decided: July 30, 2026

To determine whether the Recreational Use Statute applies, a court must look at the intended purpose of the area in which the plaintiff was injured and whether the plaintiff’s use of that area when injured was consistent with the intended purpose.

Background

StoneMor Partners, L.P. owns and operates Lincoln Memorial Cemetery and holds the cemetery open to the public. DeVaughn went to the cemetery grounds to visit her son’s gravesite. While there, DeVaughn stepped into a ditch and sustained serious injuries. DeVaughn filed suit against StoneMor Partners, L.P. claiming negligence and alleging that the ditch was hidden due to StoneMor Partners, L.P.’s failure to maintain the area. StoneMor Partners, L.P. moved to dismiss DeVaughn’s claim stating it did not owe visitors a duty to warn of hazards, inspect the grounds, or maintain gravesites under the Recreational Use Statute (“Statute”). DeVaughn failed to timely respond to the motion, and the court granted it. DeVaughn filed a motion to reconsider, asserting that the Statute does not bar her claim, as she was a business invitee and not a visitor for recreational or educational purposes. The court denied them motion for reconsideration, and an appeal followed.

Holding

The Statute limits the liability of private landowners who make their land available to the public for recreational or educational use. However, a landowner does not receive blanket immunity merely because it opens its property to the public for such uses. The Appellate Court turned to the framework provided by the Supreme Court of Maryland in Mayor & City of Baltimore v. Wallace, which requires courts to determine the intended purpose of the land and whether the injured party’s use of the land was consistent with said purpose. Thus, if DeVaughn was injured in an area of the cemetery that was intended for recreational or educational uses and she was using the land for such purposes when injured, then it was appropriate to deny her motion for reconsideration based on the Statute. On the other hand, if DeVaughn was injured in an area intended for commercial purposes and she was using the area consistent with those purposes, then she should have been allowed to proceed with her claim. As the Complaint did not provide sufficient facts relating to the area where she was injured, the Appellate Court reversed and remanded the case for application of the Wallace standard to additional relevant facts.

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