Appellate Court of

04/14/2023

 

Appellate Court of Maryland Affirms Summary Judgment Denying Negligence Claim Stemming from Gun Violence in
the Workplace

On
September 20, 2018, Snochia Moseley opened fire on several employees at a Rite
Aid Distribution Center in Aberdeen, Maryland, killing three and wounding three
more. Prior to her deadly attack, Moseley was employed by Abacus Corporation
and assigned to temporarily work in Rite Aid’s warehouse facility. The injured
employees, known as “The Mitchells,” were employed by Capstone Logistics who
contracted with Rite Aid to unload trucks at the facility.

The
Mitchells filed suit against both Abacus Corporation and Rite Aid, alleging
that they suffered damages proximately caused by the companies’ negligent
failure to provide adequate security at the facility and negligent hiring and
supervision of Moseley. Rite Aid argued that the Mitchells’ tort claims were
barred because they were temporary employees under Rite Aid’s control and thus,
Rite Aid was entitled to workers’ compensation immunity under Section 9-509 of
the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act. Baltimore County Circuit Court granted
summary judgment in favor of Abacus and Rite Aid, finding that the Mitchells
failed to present evidence that would establish Abacus was negligent in hiring
Moseley or that Rite Aid should have foreseen the shooting such that adequate
security would have been provided. Additionally, the circuit court found that
the Mitchells were temporary employees of Rite Aid, meaning Rite Aid was
immunized from their tort claims.

The
Mitchells appealed to the Appellate Court of Maryland, which has since issued
an opinion affirming the circuit court’s judgment in part, and reversing the issue
of Rite Aid’s immunity.  Earlier this
month, the appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s granting of Rite Aid’s
motion for summary judgment, finding that Rite Aid was not liable for the mass
shooting. The court reasoned that the Mitchells did not show that the mass
shooting could have been foreseen or that inadequate security was provided.
There was no evidence offered that would indicate Moseley posed a threat of
violence or that any events preceding the shooting would give rise to such a
violent attack.

 However, the appellate court found that the
circuit court erred in finding that the Mitchells were temporary employees of
Rite Aid. In determining who the Mitchells were employed by, the court
considered which company had the power to select and hire the employee, the
payment of wages, the power to discharge, the power to control the employee’s
conduct, and whether the work was part of the regular business of the employer.
Control of the employees was the most persuasive factor, and because the drug
store chain did not directly supervise the Mitchells and the contracting
company Capstone was solely responsible for its own employees, the Mitchells
were not employees of Rite Aid. Although the Mitchells will not be receiving
settlements from Rite Aid, they will receive workers’ compensation benefits
through their employer Capstone.

This
opinion serves two purposes, one for employers and one for employees. The court
made clear that this opinion was not to suggest that mass shootings are
unforeseeable as a matter of law such that employers may escape liability.
However, it sheds light on the standard of care surrounding a business owner’s
duty to protect invitees from gun violence. As for employees, this case will resolve
any confusion amongst employment, particularly when companies are
subcontracting with each other or third-parties are intertwined.

 

Faith
Zellman, Law Clerk