Mitchell v. Rite Aid of Md.
| Decision Date | 02 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | 21-2022 |
| Parties | HAISSAUN MITCHELL, ET AL. v. RITE AID OF MARYLAND, INC., ET AL. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Baltimore County Case No. C-03-CV-20-000041
OPINION
It is a somber and sobering fact that the steady increase in the number of mass shootings[1] has impelled both public and private organizations to begin considering security measures responsive to that risk.[2] This appeal arises out of the tragic mass shooting that occurred on September 20, 2018, at a warehouse facility leased by appellee, Rite Aid of Maryland Inc. ("Rite Aid") in Aberdeen, Maryland. The shooter, Snochia Moseley ("Moseley"), was an employee of appellee, Abacus Corporation ("Abacus"), temporarily assigned to work in Rite Aid's facility. On the day in question, Moseley gained access to the facility using her ID badge and proceeded to open fire on her coworkers, killing three and wounding three more.[3] Appellants-Haissaun Mitchell ("Haissaun"), Shyheim Mitchell ("Shyheim"), and Michael Mitchell ("Michael") (collectively, "the Mitchells")- worked for Pinnacle Workforce Logistics, LLC, d/b/a Capstone Logistics, LLC ("Capstone") as temporary laborers at the facility. Haissaun, Shyheim's brother and Michael's son, was shot in the leg during Moseley's attack and all three suffer ongoing emotional and physical repercussions from the trauma they experienced that day.
We hold that the circuit court erred, in part, by granting Rite Aid's motion for summary judgment on the ground of workers' compensation immunity. Guided by well-defined precedent in Tyson Farms, Inc. v. Uninsured Emps.' Fund, 471 Md. 386 (2020), Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc. v. Imbraguglio, 346 Md. 573 (1997), and Whitehead v. Safway Steel Prods., Inc., 304 Md. 67 (1985), we conclude that genuine disputes of material fact precluded a determination of whether Rite Aid was the Mitchells' employer on summary judgment. Specifically, we observe that the prospect that Rite Aid maintained ultimate control over its facility and directed Capstone's supervisors on the services to be provided is not necessarily inconsistent with the possibility that the Mitchells remained employees of an independent contractor free from Rite Aid's control, except as to the final product of their work.
We affirm, however, the circuit court's alternative grant of summary judgment in favor of Rite Aid on the Mitchells' premises liability claim because the Mitchells failed to present any admissible evidence establishing that Moseley's tragic shooting spree was foreseeable. On the element of duty, the Mitchells did not establish that Moseley's attack was a reasonably foreseeable criminal act because (a) there was no history of violent criminal activity in the vicinity of the facility, (b) there was no indication that Moseley posed a threat of violence, and (c) the events immediately preceding the shootings did not presage any imminent violent outburst. Additionally, on the element of causation, the Mitchells failed to identify a causal link between the alleged breaches of duty and the Mitchells' injuries because the evidence established that Moseley would have gained access to the building with her ID badge regardless of the extra security measures suggested by the Mitchells.
Finally, we conclude that the circuit court did not err in granting Abacus's motion for summary judgment on the Mitchells' negligent hiring and supervision claim because they failed to produce any evidence that Abacus was on notice of Moseley's violent characteristics.
We caution that this opinion should not be read to suggest that mass shootings are unforeseeable as a matter of law. As grim statistics and the development of the law in our sister states foreshadow, the standards of care surrounding a business owner's duty to protect invitees from gun violence are not static and will continue to evolve in light of "common sense perceptions of the risks created by various conditions and circumstances." Axelrod v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., 65 F.Supp.3d 1093, 1100 (D. Colo. 2014) (quoting Taco Bell, Inc. v. Lannon, 744 P.2d 43, 48 (Colo. 1987)).
On appeal from the grant of summary judgment, we recite the material facts presented in the deposition testimony affidavits, agreements, reports, and other evidence before the motions court. Later, in our analysis of the case, we view those material facts that remain in dispute between the parties in a light most favorable to the appellants. Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 v. Erie Ins. Exch. et al., 469 Md. 704, 746 (2020) (citation omitted).
Snochia Moseley was a temporary worker at the Rite Aid Distribution Center in Aberdeen, Maryland. Prior to September 20, 2018 she had only worked approximately eight shifts at the facility. On that fateful September morning, Moseley reportedly agitated other workers when she cut in front of them to check into work. She then left the facility for a brief period and returned with a handgun.
At approximately 9:00 a.m., Moseley re-entered the Rite Aid Distribution Center's perimeter gate using her access badge. After parking her car, she got out and opened fire on a group of workers congregated outside the building. Moseley proceeded to enter the building through the front entrance and into the break room, where Haissaun and Shyheim were taking their break. Haissaun, a worker at the facility, employed through Capstone Logistics, related that after hearing the shooting begin, he attempted to escape from the break room but was shot in the leg. Still, he was able to run "down the side of the building" and find an exit door to flee from Moseley.
Haissaun's brother, Shyheim, was also employed at the facility through Capstone. Shyheim later testified that he was also in the break room when the shooting began, and that after he heard the first shots, he "[got] to the ground" and hid until Moseley ran "out onto the floor." He then ran through the lobby, where he observed one of the shooting victims, before calling 911.
Michael Mitchell, the father of Shyheim and Haissaun, and a senior Capstone employee, was unloading a truck at the facility when the attack began. After hearing the shots, Michael witnessed a stream of people "coming from the break room." Concerned for Shyheim and Haissaun, Michael scrambled to find them and came upon another worker who had been shot in the stomach. Michael then "ran around the front to the initial parking lot" and saw "a body on the ground" before jumping in his car. He was able to find Shyheim eventually in the parking lot and learned shortly after that Haissaun had been shot in the leg. Haissaun received treatment from emergency personnel at the scene and was transported to the hospital after losing a substantial amount of blood from the gunshot wound.
Moseley's deadly assault occurred within a span of five minutes. Harford County Sheriff's Office deputies, Maryland State Police, and EMS personnel began responding to the active shooter situation at 9:11 a.m., but by that time six victims had been shot by Moseley, three of whom ultimately died. Moseley was found at the scene by Harford County law enforcement officers with a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head.
Once the scene was secured, Harford County detectives spoke with Chris Fisher, a manager employed by Rite Aid. Mr. Fisher explained that Moseley was "a current employee with Abacus Staffing, a temporary employee agency that provided additional staffing" and detectives learned that she had been working as a temporary employee at the Rite Aid facility for about two weeks. Mr. Fisher noted that Moseley had trouble getting to work and staying for mandatory overtime. He also mentioned that, on the morning in question, it was reported that Moseley had "cut in front of someone" in the line to clock in for the day "so that she would not be late." Because several other employees had also cut in line before, Mr. Fisher addressed the issue at Rite Aid's daily morning meeting.
Another employee, Liteya Head, also told Officer Robert Royster that Moseley cut in front of her and several other employees that morning. Ms. Head said that she did not notice anything otherwise unusual about Moseley and advised that Moseley was a "loner" and "did not speak to people often." The detectives reported that "most of the employees did not know Moseley's name because she was so new." In his deposition testimony, Haissaun described her as being "quiet" and keeping to herself. However, Haissaun did recount rumors that Moseley had tension with a few of her coworkers. Haissaun explained that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial