Ford v. Edmondson Vill. Shopping Ctr. Holdings, LLC

• Decision Date: 02 July 2021
• Docket Number: No. 1656, Sept. Term, 2019,1656, Sept. Term, 2019
• Citation: 254 A.3d 138,251 Md.App. 335
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
• Parties: Kathleen FORD, et al. v. EDMONDSON VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER HOLDINGS, LLC

251 Md.App. 335

254 A.3d 138

Kathleen FORD, et al.

v.EDMONDSON VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER HOLDINGS, LLC

No. 1656, Sept. Term, 2019

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

July 2, 2021

Argued by: Michael J. Belsky & Catherine A. Dickinson, Schlachman, Belsky & Weiner, PA, on the brief, Baltimore, MD, for Appellant.

Argued by: Moyah K. Panda (Law Office of Jonathan P. Stebenne, on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellee.

Panel: Kehoe, Gould, Deborah S. Eyler (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Eyler, Deborah S., J.

This appeal stems from the tragic death of Deric Ford on August 8, 2017, inside the Dollar General store in the Edmondson Village Shopping Center ("Shopping Center"). That night, Mr. Ford was working as the store manager when he was shot and killed by one of two robbers who entered the store and held him up at gunpoint.

In the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Kathleen Ford, Mr. Ford's wife, individually and as personal representative of Mr. Ford's estate, together with the Fords’ adult children (collectively "the Fords"), the appellants, brought survival and wrongful death actions in negligence against Edmondson Village Shopping Center Holdings, LLC ("Edmondson Village"), the appellee, which owns the Shopping Center. The Fords alleged that Edmondson Village failed to take adequate security measures in common areas of the Shopping Center, causing it to become a "haven" for foreseeable violent criminal activity, and thereby proximately causing Mr. Ford's murder in the Dollar General store.

Edmondson Village moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted, arguing that as a matter of law Mr. Ford was not a business invitee and that it did not owe Mr. Ford a duty to protect him from the criminal acts of third persons inside Dollar General's leased premises. The court granted the motion.

The Fords noted this timely appeal, raising two issues, which we have rephrased and combined as follows:

Did the circuit court err in dismissing the Fords’ negligence claims on the ground that Edmondson Village did not owe Mr. Ford a duty to protect him from the criminal acts of third persons that took place on the Dollar General store premises?

We hold that when Mr. Ford was murdered inside Dollar General, his status vis-à-vis Edmondson Village was that of tenant to landlord. We further hold that at this stage of the litigation, the facts are not sufficiently developed to answer the legal question whether Edmondson Village owed Mr. Ford a duty to protect him from the criminal acts of third persons on the Dollar General premises, by providing security guards or other security measures in the common areas of the Shopping Center. We shall vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

On review of the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted, we accept all well-pleaded facts as true. Wheeling v. Selene Fin. LP , 473 Md. 356, ––––, 250 A.3d 197, 207 (2021) ; O'Brien & Gere Eng'rs, Inc. v. City of Salisbury , 447 Md. 394, 403-04, 135 A.3d 473 (2016). Like the court below, we consider the facts alleged in the operative complaint and any supporting exhibits incorporated into it. See RRC Northeast, LLC v. BAA Maryland, Inc ., 413 Md. 638, 643, 994 A.2d 430 (2010). Dismissal is warranted if, even assuming the truth of all well-pleaded factual allegations and drawing all reasonable inferences from those allegations in favor of the plaintiff, the plaintiff still would not be entitled to relief. O'Brien & Gere Eng'rs , 447 Md. at 403-04, 135 A.3d 473.

Whether a complaint fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted is a question of law. Ceccone v. Carroll Home Servs., LLC , 454 Md. 680, 691, 165 A.3d 475 (2017). Accordingly, we review a circuit court's decision to grant a motion to dismiss without deference, to determine whether the ruling was legally correct. See Lamson v. Montgomery Cty ., 460 Md. 349, 360, 190 A.3d 316 (2018) ; Patton v. Wells Fargo Fin. Maryland, Inc. , 437 Md. 83, 95, 85 A.3d 167 (2014).

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

The First Amended Complaint is the operative pleading in this case. It contains a statement of facts and three negligence counts: a survival action by Mrs. Ford as Personal Representative of Mr. Ford's estate; a wrongful death action by Mrs. Ford; and a wrongful death action by the Ford Children.¹ The following is a summary of background information that is undisputed and facts alleged by the Fords. We know the facts are simply allegations but given our standard of review, and to provide an uncluttered recital, we state them affirmatively and quote liberally from the First Amended Complaint.

The Shopping Center is one of the oldest strip malls in Baltimore City, having opened in 1947. It consists of a long row of stores facing a terraced surface parking lot that fronts the north side of Edmondson Avenue, a main east-west artery in West Baltimore. After thriving for decades, the Shopping Center "began deteriorating, and by the turn of the century, had turned into a well-known haven for criminal activity."

"[I]n 2007, the City of Baltimore commissioned the ‘Edmondson Village Area Master Plan,’ " i.e ., "Master Plan," "in response to, including but not limited to, years of complaints surrounding the general decay and prevalence of dangerous criminal activity occurring at the Shopping Center."² "The Master Plan concluded that one of the most prevalent concerns facing the Edmondson Village area, including the Shopping Center, was drug-related criminal activity."³

Several years after the Master Plan was released, a "grass-roots organization" was "formed in an attempt to hold the Shopping Center accountable to the promises made in response to the Master Plan, and to push for further repairs and development."⁴ One of its primary purposes was "to thwart the rash of criminal activity at the Shopping Center." During this time, there were complaints on third-party websites about "the prevalence of criminal activity, lack of security, and general disrepair of the Shopping Center[.]"

Calls for Service Reports of the Baltimore Police Department ("BPD") show that, between January 1, 2010 and July 31, 2017, several hundred violent crimes, including "robbery, assault, aggravated assault, homicide, larceny, auto theft, and burglary[,]" "committed with a wide variety of weapons," were reported as having "occurred on and/or around" the "Shopping Center property." "The Shopping Center was a petri dish for criminal activity. The absolute lack of adequate security measures provided violent criminal offenders with an open forum to engage in criminal enterprises, including but not limited to, armed robbery and homicide." "In fact, on July 21, 2017, a mere eighteen (18) days prior to the murder of Mr. Ford, a fatal stabbing, which was ultimately deemed a homicide, occurred on the Shopping Center property." "[F]or years leading up to the summer of 2017," Ira Miller, owner of Edmondson Village, "had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the persistent dangerous conditions at the Shopping Center."

On the night of August 8, 2017, Mr. Ford was at work in his position as manager of Dollar General. Shortly before 10 p.m., two individuals, at least one of them armed with a handgun, "entered the common areas of the Shopping Center" – apparently a reference to the surface parking lot – then walked up to and entered Dollar General. At that time, "inadequate security measures were in place in the common areas and/or throughout the Shopping Center, including, but not limited to, a lack of security presence and/or security guards." Upon entering, the individuals "threatened Mr. Ford with the handgun, and proceeded to rob the Dollar General." As they were leaving, but still inside the store, one robber "shot Mr. Ford, inflicting fatal injuries." At that time, "Mr. Ford was acting within the scope of his employment with Dollar General, and was lawfully on the premises of [the Shopping Center] as a business invitee and/or a tenant of the Shopping Center."

"[D]espite actual and/or constructive notice of pervasive criminal activity on the premises, [Edmondson Village] did not, and has not, ameliorated and/or otherwise changed and/or updated its security practices at the Shopping Center." Edmondson Village "knew, or should have known, there was a substantial foreseeable risk of violent crimes occurring on Shopping Center property, and that there was a correspondingly high risk of individuals on the premises suffering harm as a result of such acts." Edmondson Village "failed to maintain sufficient security measures to prevent and/or deter that foreseeable harm to individuals on the premises." "The violent nature of the acts perpetrated on Mr. Ford were easily foreseeable, as crimes involving violence, perpetrated with and without weapons, were a common occurrence at and/or near the Shopping Center." Edmondson Village's "negligence caused the death of Mr. Ford, as there were no security measures to prevent or minimize the harm and risk posed to Mr. Ford as an invitee and/or tenant of" Edmondson Village.

Edmondson Village "owed Mr. Ford a duty of care commensurate with the law, including, but not limited to, ensuring his safety while an invitee and/or tenant on its property, and protecting him from foreseeable harm." It breached that duty by:

a. Failing "to protect Mr. Ford from reasonably foreseeable dangerous conditions," including "criminal activity, on [the Shopping Center's] premises of which it had actual and/or constructive knowledge and/or notice;"

b. Failing "to use reasonable care in caring for and securing public areas on the premises of the Shopping Center;"

c. Failing "to use reasonable care in maintaining, updating, and/or increasing security measures despite knowledge and/or [having] notice of the prevalence of violent crimes on the premises;"

d. Failing "to properly respond" by investigating "patron complaints regarding

...