Opinion
C.A. No. 06C-10-028 JAP.
Submitted: September 11, 2008.
Decided: November 25, 2008.
On Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment DENIED.
Sonia Charlton, Errol L. Charlton, Newark, Delaware.
Margaret F. England, Esquire, Kathleen L. Turner, Esquire, Eckert Seamans Cherin Mellott, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware.
Dear Counsel and Mr. and Mrs. Charlton:
Before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., and Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. ("Wal-Mart"), which seeks a determination that it was not negligent when Plaintiff Sonia Charlton fell while on Wal-Mart's premises, allegedly due to inadequate lighting. Based on the limited record before the Court, Wal-Mart, as the moving party, has not met its burden of establishing that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, Wal-Mart's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Sonia and Errol Charlton filed a complaint against Wal-Mart in this Court seeking damages allegedly incurred as a result of injuries sustained by Mrs. Charlton when she was exiting one of Wal-Mart's stores located on Route 40 in New Castle, Delaware at night. Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that Mrs. Charlton tripped over a curb because the lights in front of the store were blocked by one of Wal-Mart's trucks.
The Court notes that there is currently no evidence in the record to indicate that the truck belonged to Wal-Mart.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is appropriate only where "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." If, however, material issues of fact exist or if a court determines that it does not have sufficient facts to enable it to apply the law to the facts before it, the court will not grant summary judgment.
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56(c)
Motorola, Inc. v. Amkor Tech., Inc., 849 A.2d 931, 936 (Del. 2004).
Although the moving party has the burden of demonstrating that no material issues of fact are in dispute and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the facts must be viewed "in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Furthermore, "[f]rom those accepted facts the court will draw all rational inferences which favor the non-moving party."
Mason v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 697 A.2d 388, 392 (Del .1997).
Merrill v. Crothall-American, Inc., 606 A.2d 96, 99 (Del. 1992).
III. DISCUSSION
Storekeepers are not "insurers of the safety of all customers coming into their store;" however, under Delaware law, they owe a duty "to keep their store premises in a reasonably safe condition for the use of their customers." In order to prevail in an action for personal injuries resulting from a defendant storekeeper's alleged breach of that duty, the plaintiff must show that:
Wilson v. Derrickson, 175 A.2d 400, 402 (Del. 1961).
(1) there was an unsafe condition in the defendant's store (2) which caused the injuries complained of, and (3) "of which the storekeeper had actual notice or which could have been discovered by such reasonable inspection as other reasonably prudent storekeepers would regard as necessary."
Hazel v. Delaware Supermarkets, Inc., 953 A.2d 705 (Del. 2008) (citing Howard v. Food Fair Stores, New Castle, Inc., 201 A.2d 638, 640 (Del. 1964)) (holding that patron who slipped in the frozen food aisle of the defendant's store met her burden of making a prima facie showing of negligence).
On the limited record before the Court, Wal-Mart has not met its burden of establishing that "there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the undisputed material facts legally preclude a finding of negligence on the part of the defendants." Viewing the facts in light most favorable to Mrs. Charlton, a reasonable person could find that there was a dangerous condition, namely, a truck blocking the light outside of the store, which caused Mrs. Charlton to fall and suffer injury. Mrs. Charlton testified that "[a]ll of a sudden, my foot, I just find myself falling, and I didn't know when I hit the ground . . . it was dark, I couldn't see where you step down."
Hazel, 953 A.2d at 710.
Arbitration Tr. at 5:3-14 (July 25, 2007).
Furthermore, a reasonable person could find that Wal-Mart should have been aware of the dangerous condition, and that by failing to discover it and to take reasonable measures to prevent injuries to customers, Wal-Mart was negligent. According to Mrs. Charlton's testimony, a truck was blocking the light outside of the store. She also testified that an employee came out after she had fallen and said: "My God, this place is so dark . . . Who parked these big tractor trailers . . . Tell them to move, move it, move it, that's why it's so dark." While a jury may ultimately determine that Wal-Mart was not negligent, under these particular circumstances, with the limited record before it, the Court cannot conclude as a matter of law that Wal-Mart is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Court emphasizes that the record here is sparse. It may well be that plaintiffs will be unable to make out a prima facie case at trial. Nothing in this letter opinion is intended to foreclose defendants from pursuing a motion for judgment as a matter of law at trial.
Id. at 6:4-9.
See Garofoli v. Salesianum School, Inc., 208 A.2d 308, 311 (Del. 1965) (holding that a reasonable person could conclude that the defendant "was negligent in not providing adequate light in its parking lot").
IV. CONCLUSION
After considering the facts and inferences in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the Court finds that there is a genuine issue of material fact in dispute and that Wal-Mart is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, Wal-Mart's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
Plaintiffs' response in opposition to Wal-Mart's motion also asks the Court to grant summary judgment in their favor. However, just as the Court cannot conclude that Wal-Mart was not negligent as a matter of law, the Court cannot conclude that Wal-Mart was liable as a matter of law based on the limited record in this case.
Trial is scheduled to begin on Wednesday, April 15, 2009. Mediation has been scheduled prior to that date with Commissioner Mark Vavala on Thursday, January 22, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. in 10th floor Superior Court Chambers. Both sides are required to attend this mediation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.