In Rose v. Fox Pool Corp., 335 Md. 351, 358, 643 A.2d 906 (1994), the principal issue before the Court was "whether 5-108(a) applies to a cause of action brought against the manufacturer of a residential, in-ground swimming pool for injuries caused by an alleged defect in the pool's design." Id. at 354. The trial court held that it did and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant manufacturer on the ground that 5-108(a) barred the plaintiff's suit. Id. at 358. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the statute of repose applied to the facts of that case but nonetheless reversed the judgment of that court on the ground that "there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff's injury occurred more than 20 years after the date the entire improvement first became available for its intended use. " 335 Md. at 354-55. In reaching that conclusion, the Court of Appeals stated that "the specific statutory language of 5-108(a) precludes all actions which meet two requirements: (1) the plaintiff's injuries must have resulted from the alleged defective and unsafe condition of 'an improvement to real property'; and (2) 20 years must have passed since the 'entire improvement first became available for its intended use.'" Id. at 360. The first requirement - that "the plaintiff's injuries must have resulted from the alleged defective and unsafe condition of 'an improvement to real property'" - has three components: 1) an improvement to real property, 2) a defective and unsafe condition of that improvement, and 3) injuries resulting from the defective and unsafe condition. Unfortunately, neither the language of the statute nor its legislative history provides much assistance in defining these three components. Indeed, as to the first component, the Court of Appeals observed that "Section 5-108 itself does not define 'improvement to real property' and there is no clear indication in the legislative history of the statute as to what the term was meant to encompass." Id. at 375. In defining that term, the Court of Appeals then prescribed a "common sense approach" and adopted the Black's Law Dictionary definition of "an improvement to real property." Id. at 376. That text defines such an improvement as: A valuable addition made to property (usually real estate) or an amelioration in its condition, amounting to more than mere repairs or replacement, costing labor or capital, and intended to enhance its value, beauty or utility or to adapt it for new or further purposes. Generally has reference to buildings, but may also include any permanent structure or other development, such as a street, sidewalks, sewers, utilities, etc. An expenditure to extend the useful life of an asset or to improve its performance over that of the original asset. Such expenditures are capitalized as part of the asset's cost. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 757 (6th ed. 1990). The Court then set forth the factors that should be considered in determining whether something qualifies as an "improvement to real property." They are "the nature of the addition or betterment, its permanence and relationship to the land and its occupants, and its effect on the value and use of the property." (Rose, 335 Md. at 376-77.)