Webb v. Giant of Maryland
266 A.3d 339
Md.2021Background
- On Dec. 4, 2014, Karen Webb was injured in a Giant supermarket when a non‑motorized pallet jack operated by Keydonne Winzer (a Pepsi employee) struck her as he stocked shelves.
- Webb sued Giant for negligence and negligent hiring/training/supervision, asserting vicarious liability based on Giant’s alleged control over the vendor’s work.
- Giant moved for summary judgment (denied). At trial, after Webb rested, Giant moved for judgment (denied); the jury returned a verdict for Webb.
- Evidence at trial established Winzer was a Pepsi employee, trained by Pepsi; Giant permitted vendors to use non‑motorized pallet jacks, required check‑in/out, could correct vendors, and prohibited powered jacks for vendors.
- Trial evidence showed the store had cameras; no video of the incident was produced and Giant’s corporate rep testified no video existed. The court gave a civil spoliation instruction; plaintiff emphasized it in closing.
- The Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding (1) the denial of the motion for judgment was error because Giant lacked sufficient retained control to impose vicarious liability, and (2) the spoliation instruction was improper and prejudicial. This Court affirmed the appellate court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard of review for appellate review of trial court’s denial of a motion for judgment | Court of Special Appeals should have applied abuse‑of‑discretion (same as denial of summary judgment) | Motion for judgment is reviewed de novo/without deference; appellate court must view evidence in light most favorable to non‑moving party and decide legal sufficiency | Cited precedent requires de novo review of a motion for judgment; Court of Special Appeals applied correct standard and analysis |
| Sufficiency of evidence to submit vicarious‑liability claim (retained control over independent contractor) | Webb: Giant exercised sufficient control (restricted use to non‑powered jacks, required check‑in/out, could correct vendors, direct where to stock) | Giant: Winzer was Pepsi’s employee; Giant’s rights were only general control of premises and not control over operative details that caused injury | Evidence established at most general control; insufficient as a matter of law under §414/MD precedent to submit to jury; judgment as matter of law for Giant affirmed |
| Spoliation instruction (missing/destroyed evidence) — applicability and prejudice | Webb: Instruction appropriate because store had cameras and jurors could infer a video existed and was not preserved | Giant: No evidence the video ever existed; giving the instruction invited speculation and was prejudicial | Instruction unsupported by evidence of actual existence/destruction of video; giving it was an abuse of discretion and probably prejudicial; reversal on that basis was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Appiah v. Hall, 416 Md. 533 (recognizes retention‑of‑control exception to nonliability for independent contractor’s negligence)
- Dashiell v. Meeks, 396 Md. 149 (distinguishes standards for appellate review of summary judgment depending on trial court ruling)
- Thomas v. Panco Mgmt. of Maryland, LLC, 423 Md. 387 (motion for judgment requires any legally sufficient evidence, however slight, to generate a jury question)
- Sugarman v. Liles, 460 Md. 396 (appellate review of motion for judgment is without deference; view evidence for non‑moving party)
- Steamfitters Loc. Union No. 602 v. Erie Ins. Exch., 469 Md. 704 (spoliation/missing‑evidence principles and when video existence supports instruction)
- Cost v. State, 417 Md. 360 (civil spoliation instruction explained and purpose described)
- Harris v. State, 458 Md. 370 (caution in giving missing‑witness/missing‑evidence jury instructions; trial court discretion)
- Metro. Mortg. Fund, Inc. v. Basiliko, 288 Md. 25 (trial court may deny technically sufficient summary judgment and require trial on merits)
- Giant of Maryland, LLC v. Webb, 249 Md. App. 545 (intermediate appellate opinion reversing trial verdict on grounds of insufficient retained control and improper spoliation instruction)