Furman Honick Law attorney Allen E. Honick has secured a reported reversal from the Appellate Court of Maryland in Moore v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 371, Sept. Term 2025 (Md. App. Ct. May 29, 2026), a premises liability case arising from a vehicle crash through the front doors of a Salisbury CVS store. The court held that the Circuit Court for Wicomico County erred when it granted summary judgment to the CVS defendants, reversed that judgment, and sent the case back to the circuit court for further proceedings.
Because the opinion is reported, it is published precedent that Maryland courts will apply in future cases. The case itself remains ongoing. The ruling does not decide who is ultimately responsible for our client’s injuries. It means the disputed questions in her case go back to the trial court instead of being cut off before trial.
Schedule a Free ConsultationWhat Happened at the Salisbury CVS
On the afternoon of December 10, 2019, our client, Ashley Moore, was leaving a CVS store on South Salisbury Boulevard in Salisbury, Maryland. As she walked through the store’s glass entrance doors, another customer pulled an SUV into one of the parking spaces facing the entrance and failed to brake. The vehicle rolled over the six-inch wheel stop, crossed the pedestrian walkway, and crashed through the doors, striking Ms. Moore. She lost consciousness and suffered multiple fractures that required surgery.
The layout of the store was central to the case. The four accessible parking spaces near the entrance had safety bollards in front of them. The unreserved spaces on the other side of the building, including the one the driver used, had only wheel stops. According to expert reports in the record, bollards can impede a vehicle moving faster than 20 miles per hour, while wheel stops are not designed to stop a moving vehicle at all. They only alert a driver that the car has reached the edge of the space. There was also no curb or elevation change between the parking spaces and the walkway.
Ms. Moore’s engineering expert concluded that the parking layout violated standard engineering principles by aiming head-in parking spaces at a storefront used by pedestrians, with no bollard or other vehicle-stopping barrier in between.
How the Trial Court Ruled
Ms. Moore brought negligence and premises liability claims against the companies that owned and operated the store. The circuit court granted summary judgment, ending the case against two CVS entities before trial:
- The CVS company that operates the store, on the ground that there had been no prior accidents at that store to put it on notice of the danger.
- Its parent company, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., on the ground that it did not own or operate the store.
What the Appellate Court of Maryland Decided
In an opinion by Judge Arthur, the Appellate Court reversed on both grounds.
1. A prior crash at the same store is not required
The court reaffirmed that a storekeeper may have a duty to use reasonable care to protect customers from dangers caused by the negligence of other customers, when a reasonably prudent person would have anticipated the possible occurrence and its probable results. When the evidence supports an inference that an injury arose at least in part from an unsafe condition on the property, and that the type of harm was reasonably foreseeable and could have been guarded against, foreseeability and proximate cause are questions for the trier of fact.
Applying that rule, the court held that the store operator was not entitled to summary judgment merely because no similar crashes had happened at that store or at certain nearby stores, or merely because the parking space had a wheel stop. The court found the evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that the operator knew, or should have known, that the arrangement of the parking spaces and entrance presented an unreasonable risk of harm to customers.
2. A parent company’s denial of control did not end the claim
The court also held that there was a genuine dispute about whether CVS Pharmacy, Inc. operated, managed, or controlled the store owned by its subsidiary. The parent company performed management functions for the subsidiary under an agency agreement, and one of its supervisory employees testified that its operation and management of the store included decisions about repairs and maintenance. An executive’s affidavit denying that the parent controlled the store was not enough, because the parent never produced the agency agreement that the affidavit relied on.
The court rejected the parent company’s statute of limitations argument as well. Spelling out the agency relationship in the pleadings would not introduce a new cause of action, and the court noted that the parent company did not disclose the agency agreement until after discovery had closed. On remand, Ms. Moore is entitled to conduct discovery about that agreement and the parent company’s role at the store.
The court reversed the judgment, remanded the case for further proceedings, and ordered the CVS defendants to pay the costs of the appeal.
What This Ruling Means for Maryland Premises Liability Claims
As a reported decision, Moore offers guidance for anyone hurt on commercial property in Maryland, and especially for people injured in store parking lots and entrances:
- Property layout matters. A business may be responsible for foreseeable hazards created by how its property is arranged, even when another person’s negligence is the immediate cause of the injury.
- A clean history at one location is not automatically a defense. An injured person does not have to prove that the same thing had already happened at the same store for the case to reach a factfinder.
- Corporate structure is not an automatic shield. When a parent company performs management functions for a store, a bare denial of control may not be enough to get it dismissed, particularly when the documents defining its role have not been produced.
Every premises case turns on its own facts, and whether a business is ultimately liable is decided through the litigation process. But Moore makes clear that these questions often belong to a jury, not to a pretrial ruling.
Talk With Furman Honick Law
If you were injured on someone else’s property in Maryland, including a store parking lot, walkway, or entrance, our premises liability lawyers can review what happened and explain your options. Call 410-844-6000 or contact us online to schedule a free consultation.
Moore v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. remains pending in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County. This post describes an appellate ruling and does not describe or predict the final outcome of the case. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future case. Every case is different and depends on its own facts. This post is for general informational purposes and is not legal advice.