Giant of Md. v. Webb, 246 A.3d 664

Background

On Dec. 4, 2014 Karen Webb fell in the frozen-food aisle of a Giant supermarket after being struck while standing up; she alleged she was hit by a pallet jack being moved by a store worker.
The operator, Keydonne Winzer, testified he was a PepsiCo merchandiser (not a Giant employee), trained and paid by PepsiCo, used Giant-owned non‑powered pallet jacks, and checked in/out with store staff.
Webb sued Giant for negligence and negligent hiring/training/supervision; she later amended to add PepsiCo (which was dismissed on statute‑of‑limitations grounds); trial proceeded against Giant.
The trial court granted judgment for Giant on premises‑liability and negligent‑hiring counts but allowed a vicarious‑liability theory (based on alleged control over Winzer) to go to the jury; jury returned a plaintiff verdict and large damages award.
Giant appealed, challenging (1) denial of summary judgment and motions for judgment on vicarious‑liability grounds, (2) denial of a motion in limine to exclude "Reptile"/safety‑duty arguments, and (3) the trial court's spoliation jury instruction.
The Court of Special Appeals reversed: it held the evidence legally insufficient to submit vicarious liability to the jury and also concluded the spoliation instruction was erroneous and prejudicial (though the latter was alternative relief).

Issues

Issue	Webb's Argument	Giant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported submitting vicarious liability/retained‑control theory to jury	Giant exercised control over Winzer on its premises (check‑in/out, provided jacks, could eject vendors), so Giant can be vicariously liable	Winzer was an independent contractor/Pepsi employee; Giant only exerted general control (store policies), insufficient to show control of operative details	Reversed: as a matter of law evidence was insufficient to show retention of control over operative details; judgment for Giant should have been granted
Whether trial court erred in denying motion in limine to bar Reptile/safety‑duty arguments	Webb: Giant owed a non‑delegable duty to keep invitees safe and may not avoid that duty by relying on contractors/vendors	Giant: Reptile/safety arguments misstate law, invite jury to impose strict insurer‑style liability, prejudicial	Not reviewed on merits: objections to specific arguments were not timely preserved; court invited contemporaneous objections and instructions covered the law
Whether giving a spoliation instruction was proper where no video was shown to have existed or been destroyed	Webb: store had ~30 cameras and preserved request; circumstantial evidence supported inference a recording likely existed and was not produced	Giant: No evidence a video ever existed or was destroyed; instruction would invite pure speculation and prejudice	Reversed (alternative): instruction abused discretion because plaintiff failed to establish video actually existed; permitting inferences about destroyed evidence was prejudicial

Key Cases Cited

Appiah v. Hall, 416 Md. 533 (2010) (retention‑of‑control/operative‑detail standard for imposing liability for independent contractor's work)
Gallagher's Estate v. Battle, 209 Md. 592 (1956) (employer liability requires control over methods/operative details)
Deering Woods Condo. Ass'n v. Spoon, 377 Md. 250 (2003) (landowner duty to invitees derived from Restatement §343)
Rowley v. Baltimore, 305 Md. 456 (1986) (general rule that employer of independent contractor not liable except by exception/non‑delegable duties)
Keyes v. Lerman, 191 Md. App. 533 (2010) (spoliation instruction distinguishes negligent failure to preserve from intentional concealment)
Solesky v. Tracey, 198 Md. App. 292 (2011) (party seeking spoliation instruction must first establish the evidence actually existed)
Barksdale v. Wilkowsky, 419 Md. 649 (2011) (erroneous jury instruction that misleads or distracts can be prejudicial and reversible)
Leach v. Metzger, 241 Md. 533 (1966) (Golden Rule arguments that invite jurors to disregard oath are improper)
Lee v. State, 405 Md. 148 (2008) (discusses Golden Rule and arguments asking jurors to place themselves in the victim's shoes)