Opinion ID: 2084660
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ryland Homes

Text: The Court of Special Appeals reversed the Circuit Court's dismissal of Counts XI and XII against Ryland on the same grounds that it reversed the motion to dismiss granted to the manufacturer defendants. The Court of Special Appeals held that, in order for Ryland to succeed on its motion to dismiss, then not only must the facts, as they relate to Ryland, admit of but one inference, but the same must be true of the acts of negligence asserted to be causes which supersede that negligence of Ryland.... Id. at 557, 933 A.2d at 560. Citing several examples to support its reasoning, [12] the Court of Special Appeals concluded that the Complaint was insufficient to properly determine whether the negligence of Ryland in selecting, purchasing and installing a smoke detector which did not comport with industry standards, and in failing to deliver a document that contained warnings of its limitations, was superseded by the negligence of the Lis and Chapmans. Regarding the Circuit Court's dismissal of the count in the Complaint alleging that Ryland was strictly liable for having participated in the selection, installation, selling and placing into the stream of commerce a defective product, the Court of Special Appeals concluded that whether intervening acts of negligence constituted superseding causes could not be determined until the facts [are] ... gleaned from all relevant and material information. Id. at 582, 933 A.2d at 575.