judgment, found that the action was barred by the statute of limitations. Holding that the question of when the sellers were placed on notice of the fraud was a question of fact, the Court of Appeals reversed. Id. at 295, 304, 503 A.2d 1313. In a footnote, the Court quoted with approval a portion of our Poffenberger opinion, wherein we stated: [T]he factual nuances of the case, susceptible to varying interpretations to which that standard must be applied, are questions for a jury, subject to instructions of the court as to what in law is sufficient to constitute a bar or to take the case out of the statute. O’Hara, 305 Md. at 299-300 n. 8, 503 A.2d 1313 (quoting Poffenberger, 46 Md.App. at 604-05, 421 A.2d 90); see Baysinger v. Schmid Prods. Co., 307 Md. 361, 367, 514 A.2d 1 (1986) (<HOLDING>). To the contrary, in Bennett v. Baskin &
holding in a civil context when reasonable minds cannot differ on the issue of intervening cause the matter can be decided as one of law holding when reasonable minds cannot differ the question of comparative negligence is a question of law appropriate for summary judgment holding that the issue is not whether officer subjectively feared suspect but whether a reasonably prudent person would justifiably believe that his safety or that of others was in danger holding where reasonable minds may differ questions of causation are for the jury holding summary judgment was improper because the issue of whether a reasonably prudent person would have undertaken a more diligent investigation was a matter about which reasonable minds could differ