Haissaun Mitchell, et al. v. Rite Aid of Maryland, Inc., et al. No. 21, Sept. Term 2022 Opinion by Leahy, J. Tort Law > Workers’ Compensation Immunity > LE § 9-509 Under Section 9-509 of the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act which is codified in Title 9 of the Maryland Code (1991, 2016 Repl. Vol., 2021 Supp.), Labor & Employment Article (“LE”), the liability of an employer for injuries to an employee while on the job is exclusive to a claim in workers’ compensation. Section 9-509 “vindicates an essential and basic tenet of workers’ compensation law—limited employer liability.” Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc. v. Imbraguglio, 346 Md. 573, 582 (1997). At its core, this tenet effectuates a compromise in which, in exchange for forfeiting their rights to bring an action in tort, employees “are provided the prospect of swift and sure compensation, without regard to fault, under other provisions of the Act.” Id. Tort Law > Workers’ Compensation Immunity > Third Party Tortfeasors Under Section 9-902 of the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act, “covered employees” may, under certain circumstances, maintain an action against a culpable third-party tortfeasor. Tort Law > Workers’ Compensation Immunity > Employer-Employee Relationship > Control of the Worker > Summary Judgment At the summary judgment stage, if the evidence supports an inference that more than one business possessed control over the plaintiffs, then “the question of whether an employer- employee relationship exists is a question of fact to be determined by the jury[.]” Tyson Farms, Inc. v. Uninsured Employers’ Fund, 471 Md. 386, 417 (2020) (quoting Mackall v. Zayre Corp., 293 Md. 221, 230 (1982)). Tort Law > Workers’ Compensation Immunity > Employer-Employee Relationship > Control of the Worker > Summary Judgment Guided by well-defined precedent in Tyson Farms, Inc. v. Uninsured Employers’ Fund, 471 Md. 386 (2020), Great Atl. & Pac. 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. Tort Law > Premises Liability > Duty to Provide Security Measures to Business Invitees > Foreseeability To avoid summary judgment on a premises liability claim arising out of the criminal act of a third party, the plaintiff must show that such activity was foreseeable. Troxel v. Iguana Cantina, LLC, 201 Md. App. 476, 491, 497 (2011). The Mitchells did not establish that the shooter’s attack was a reasonably foreseeable criminal act because (a) there was no history of violent criminal activity in the vicinity of facility, (b) there was no indication that the shooter, a temporary worker employed …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals