Sutton-Witherspoon v. S.A.F.E. Mgmt.
240 Md. App. 214
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2019Background
- After the Baltimore Ravens’ 2013 Super Bowl, the City and Ravens held a free, unticketed stadium Celebration; gates opened at 10:00 a.m. and the stadium reached capacity before the parade arrived.
- An "unprecedented" crowd followed the parade to the stadium; the fire marshal ordered gates closed, police reassigned, and gates remained unlocked for emergencies.
- Appellants Lakisha Sutton-Witherspoon and her eight-year-old son approached an open gate (Gate C or D) to enter; a crowd surge knocked and trampled them, causing injuries.
- SAFE (stadium crowd-control contractor), Ravens LP (lessee/operator), and MSA (owner) had reduced staffing for the unticketed event, did not hold the usual pre-event meeting, and removed some crowd-control measures normally used on sold-out game days.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for all defendants, concluding there was no actual or constructive notice of the specific crowd surge; appellants appealed arguing an alternative negligence theory based on foreseeability and inadequate crowd-control planning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was improper for failing to consider appellants' negligent-security/foreseeability theory | Sutton‑Witherspoon: defendants invited a large, foreseeable crowd to an unticketed, public event and unreasonably reduced staffing/barriers, creating an avoidable dangerous condition | Defendants: no notice of the sudden surge; gating/closure obviated further duties; reduced staffing reasonable for an unticketed event; surge was an unforeseeable third-party act | Reversed: trial court erred by deciding only the notice-based theory and not appellants’ alternative foreseeability/creation-of-danger theory; genuine factual disputes remain so summary judgment improper |
| Whether defendants lacked actual or constructive notice of the specific crowd surge (premises-liability failure-to-warn/remedy theory) | Sutton‑Witherspoon: Command Center saw the approaching crowd and the fire marshal ordered closure; defendants had opportunity to take precautions or warn | Defendants: testimony describes the surge as sudden/instant; no reasonable time to cure or warn; police had taken control | Trial court erred in not addressing the alternative theory; on this notice theory the trial court had granted summary judgment, but appellate court limits review to grounds relied on below and remanded to resolve the foreseeability issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Beckenheimer's Inc. v. Alameda Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 327 Md. 536 (recognizing appellate review of summary judgment ordinarily limited to trial-court grounds)
- Mathis v. Atlantic Aircraft Distributors, 216 Md. 262 (crowd-pushing/jostling from induced large gatherings may be foreseeable and owner may be liable)
- Eyerly v. Baker, 168 Md. 599 (proprietor owes invitee duty to make premises reasonably safe and may be liable where inviting a crowd creates foreseeable dangers)
- Rehn v. Westfield America, 153 Md. App. 586 (business proprietor not liable where it did not have notice in time to remove or warn of hazard)
- Deboy v. City of Crisfield, 167 Md. App. 548 (summary-judgment standard: view facts and inferences in favor of nonmoving party)
- Taylor v. Pennsylvania Co., 50 F. 755 (proprietor who solicits an extensively advertised crowd must furnish a suitable number of guards; adequacy is a jury question)