Background
Lakisha DeVaughn sued StoneMor Partners, L.P., the owner and operator of Lincoln Memorial Cemetery in Suitland, after she allegedly stepped into a concealed ditch while visiting her son’s gravesite in April 2024. She alleged that poor upkeep around the gravesite caused serious injuries and that StoneMor negligently failed to inspect, maintain, or warn visitors about hazardous conditions.
StoneMor moved to dismiss, arguing that Maryland’s Recreational Use Statute eliminated any duty to keep the cemetery safe for visitors. The circuit court initially granted the motion as unopposed after DeVaughn missed the response deadline. It later considered her timely motion for reconsideration on the merits, but denied it after finding that she had entered the cemetery without charge and that the statute therefore relieved StoneMor of a duty of care.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Court of Maryland reversed and remanded. Although review of the denial of a Maryland Rule 2-534 motion ordinarily is discretionary, the circuit court abused its discretion by applying the wrong legal standard to the Recreational Use Statute.
Under Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Wallace, the relevant inquiry is not DeVaughn’s common-law status as a business invitee or her subjective reason for visiting. The circuit court instead must determine whether the particular area where she was injured was intended primarily for recreational or educational use rather than commercial use, and whether her use of that area was recreational or educational. If the gravesite area was intended for commercial cemetery operations and DeVaughn’s use was consistent with that purpose, the statute would not bar her claim merely because her activity could also be characterized as recreational.
Key Takeaways
- Maryland’s Recreational Use Statute does not automatically immunize a cemetery owner merely because the cemetery is open to the public for some recreational or educational uses.
- An entrant’s business-invitee status and subjective purpose for entering are not dispositive under the statute.
- Courts must assess the intended use of the specific area where the injury occurred and the entrant’s actual use of that area.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Wallace’s location- and use-specific framework to mixed-use property. Landowners that conduct commercial activity on property also available for recreation or education cannot obtain blanket recreational-use immunity across the entire premises.
For premises-liability litigants, the case underscores that a no-charge entry is only one part of the statutory analysis. The intended purpose of the injury site may determine whether a negligence claim can proceed.