Liability Insight: Moore v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc: Expanding the Foreseeability Analysis for Vehicle-Into-Building Claims

Executive Summary
The Maryland Appellate Court’s decision in Moore v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (May 29, 2026) represents one of the more significant recent premises liability decisions involving vehicle-into-building collisions. The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate where a customer alleged that a retail pharmacy’s parking configuration and lack of protective barriers created an unreasonable risk that a vehicle could strike the store entrance and injure patrons. Rather than requiring evidence of prior identical incidents at the same location, the court concluded that foreseeability and proximate cause presented classic jury questions when the plaintiff produced evidence that the property’s design itself created the hazard.

Although the decision does not establish liability as a matter of law, it substantially increases litigation risk for retail owners, tenants, and property managers by signaling that the absence of previous crashes will not necessarily defeat negligence claims at the summary judgment stage. The opinion is likely to influence future litigation involving storefront impacts, pedestrian protection, and parking lot design.

Background
The plaintiff was exiting a CVS pharmacy in Salisbury, Maryland, when another customer accidentally drove through the storefront after failing to stop in a head-in parking space directly facing the entrance. The vehicle penetrated the glass entrance doors and struck the plaintiff.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants negligently maintained an unsafe premises by:

• Locating parking spaces directly in front of the customer entrance;
• Failing to install bollards or comparable vehicle-resistant barriers;
• Maintaining little or no elevation change between parking and pedestrian areas; and
• Creating a foreseeable risk that ordinary driver error would result in vehicles entering the store.

The circuit court granted summary judgment, reasoning that no prior similar crashes had occurred at the location and that the defendants therefore lacked actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition. The Maryland Appellate Court reversed, holding that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding both foreseeability and operational control of the premises.

Key Holdings

1.  Prior identical accidents are not the exclusive measure of foreseeability
   Perhaps the most important aspect of Moore is the court’s rejection of the notion that plaintiffs must identify previous vehicle-into-building crashes at the same store before a negligence claim may proceed. Instead, the court emphasized that foreseeability may arise from the nature of the property itself, including: parking orientation, pedestrian traffic, entrance configuration, traffic flow, absence of protective barriers, and expert testimony regarding accepted engineering principles. Consequently, the absence of prior accidents does not automatically entitle a property owner or tenant to summary judgment.
2. Driver negligence does not necessarily break the causal chain
   Retail defendants commonly argue that an errant driver’s negligence constitutes a superseding cause relieving the premises owner of liability. The court declined to adopt that rule. Instead, it reiterated that Maryland recognizes a duty to protect invitees from foreseeable negligent acts of third parties when those acts should reasonably be anticipated. Accordingly, if property design makes ordinary driver error capable of causing catastrophic injury, the negligent driver’s conduct and the alleged premises defect may operate as concurrent proximate causes. Whether they do so is ordinarily a question for the jury.
3. Property design itself may constitute the dangerous condition
   Unlike traditional slip-and-fall cases, Moore did not involve a transient hazard. The alleged dangerous condition was permanent: the parking layout, storefront orientation, pedestrian path, absence of bollards, and overall site design. The court recognized that where defendants themselves created or maintained the alleged condition, the conventional notice analysis becomes less significant because the defendants necessarily knew of the property’s physical configuration. The central question instead becomes whether that configuration created an unreasonable and foreseeable risk of harm.
4. Corporate operational control remains a fact-intensive inquiry
   The court also revived claims against the national CVS entity after finding factual disputes regarding operational control of the premises. Lease documents alone were not dispositive. Evidence regarding management responsibilities, maintenance authority, operational agreements, and corporate control may all affect whether multiple related entities owe duties to injured customers.

Practical Implications

1. Increased scrutiny of storefront design
   Retailers should expect plaintiffs to focus much more heavily on physical site design rather than solely on maintenance failures. Future discovery will likely include requests concerning:
   architectural plans, parking design decisions, traffic engineering analyses,
   barrier evaluations, remodel histories, risk assessments, loss-control inspections, and
   internal discussions regarding storefront protection.
2. Greater reliance on engineering experts
   The decision places considerable importance on expert testimony. Rather than debating whether prior crashes occurred, litigation is likely to center on whether accepted engineering or safety standards recommended protective measures under the circumstances. Experts in traffic engineering, human factors, and site safety will become increasingly significant in defending or prosecuting these cases.
3. More difficult summary judgment motions
   Before Moore, defendants often relied heavily on the absence of prior incidents. After Moore, that strategy alone may be insufficient. Where plaintiffs produce competent expert evidence suggesting that the property’s design created foreseeable risk, courts may allow juries to resolve disputed questions of negligence, foreseeability, and proximate cause.
4. Broader exposure for commercial landlords
   Although Moore primarily concerns CVS, the reasoning potentially affects: shopping centers,
   grocery stores, pharmacies, banks, convenience stores, restaurants, medical offices, and any business with head-in parking adjacent to customer entrances. Property owners, landlords, tenants, and management companies may all face increased scrutiny regarding the allocation of responsibility for safety improvements.

Risk Management Considerations
In light of Moore, commercial property owners and retailers should consider reviewing:

• storefronts directly exposed to head-in parking;
• pedestrian routes adjacent to vehicle traffic;
• existing bollard placement;
• compliance with current engineering guidance;
• lease provisions allocating maintenance responsibility;
• inspection and safety documentation; and’
• procedures for evaluating high-risk locations following renovations or site modifications.

Importantly, Moore does not establish a universal duty to install bollards. Rather, it suggests that the necessity of protective measures depends upon the totality of the circumstances and often presents a fact question unsuitable for summary judgment.

Looking Ahead
Moore reflects a broader judicial willingness to evaluate premises liability through the lens of risk-based design rather than historical accident frequency. As vehicle-into-building incidents continue to receive national attention, courts may increasingly examine whether ordinary driver error should be anticipated during commercial property design.

For plaintiffs, the decision lowers one significant procedural hurdle by reducing reliance on proof of prior identical accidents. For retailers and commercial property owners, it underscores the importance of proactive site-safety evaluations and careful documentation of design decisions. Whether other jurisdictions adopt a similar approach remains to be seen, but Moore is likely to become an influential citation in future storefront-impact litigation, particularly where expert testimony supports the claim that safer alternative designs were reasonably available.

Written by Heatuer A. Uzer, Esq.