1:20-cv-00664
D. MarylandJul 24, 2025Background
- Arnold Alcantar sued Costco for negligence after injuring his arm while helping a Costco employee load a heavy grill box into his vehicle at a Maryland store in 2018.
- Alcantar alleged that Costco breached its duty of care because the employee failed to lift at the same time during a coordinated count, shifting unexpected weight onto Alcantar.
- Alcantar sought damages for medical expenses and lost wages resulting from a torn bicep requiring surgery and rehabilitation.
- Costco denied liability, arguing no breach of duty, assumption of risk, and that Alcantar contributed to his own injury.
- After a bench trial, Costco moved for judgment on partial findings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(c), asserting there was insufficient evidence of breach and assumption of risk barred recovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of Duty of Care | Costco breached duty by employee not lifting grill at agreed moment, causing injury | No breach; employee acted reasonably; no evidence he failed to lift as agreed | No breach of duty; insufficient evidence employee failed to lift as agreed |
| Assumption of Risk | Alcantar did not assume risk due to assurances by Costco; equitable estoppel should bar defense | Alcantar knew and appreciated risk; voluntarily helped lift heavy object | Alcantar assumed risk; bars recovery |
| Equitable Estoppel | Costco’s promises induced Alcantar to act to his detriment | Statements only affected purchase decision, not ultimate choice to lift grill | No estoppel; no reliance shown for decision to lift grill |
| Causation (negligence elements) | Employee’s failure to coordinate caused injury | No causal link; alternative explanations possible | Court did not address (found no breach/assumption of risk) |
Key Cases Cited
- Horridge v. St. Mary’s Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 854 A.2d 1232 (Md. 2004) (elements of negligence under Maryland law)
- Giant Food v. Mitchell, 640 A.2d 1134 (Md. 1994) (shopkeeper’s duty of ordinary care)
- ADM P’ship v. Martin, 702 A.2d 730 (Md. 1997) (assumption of risk standard under Maryland law)
- Crews v. Hollenbach, 751 A.2d 481 (Md. 2000) (assumption of risk as a complete bar to negligence)
- Reichs Ford Rd. Joint Venture v. State Roads Comm’n of the State Highway Admin., 880 A.2d 307 (Md. 2005) (elements of equitable estoppel in Maryland)