Opinion
C.A. No. N10C-07-075 CLS.
Date Submitted: September 6, 2011.
Date Decided: December 6, 2011.
On Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
DENIED.Bayard J. Snyder, Esq., Snyder Associates, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Plaintiffs.
Cheryl A. Ward, Esq., Reger Rizzo Darnall, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Defendant.
ORDER
Introduction
Before the Court is Defendant's, Air Base Carpet Mart, Inc. ("Defendant"), Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 56. The Plaintiffs, Joseph and Marie Staedt ("Plaintiffs"), responded in opposition to this motion. The Court reviewed the parties' submissions and for the reasons discussed below, the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
Facts
This is a negligence action arising from Plaintiff's, Joseph Staedt ("Mr. Staedt") trip and fall at Defendant's business. On December 6, 2008, Plaintiffs and their two children were business invitees at Defendant's principal place of business located in New Castle, Delaware. At the time of the incident, Plaintiff Joseph was carrying his fourteen-month-old son. Prior to the incident, Defendant's employee operated a powered industrial truck/forklift to remove a roll of carpet. Mr. Staedt testified that he heard the employee state, "heads up, I'm going to be backing up." At that time, Mr. Staedt tripped on a wooden pallet, fell backwards, and landed on his right elbow. Defendant contends, and Plaintiffs acknowledge, that the wooden pallet was on the floor at all times while they shopped.On July 9, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendant for their negligent conduct in causing Mr. Staedt's injuries. Mr. Staedt seeks damages for injuries resulting from his fall at Airbase. Plaintiff, Marie Staedt ("Mrs. Staedt") alleges loss of consortium and severe emotional distress.
Parties' Contentions
On August 3, 2011, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment alleging no genuine issues of material fact exist because Plaintiffs acknowledge that the wooden pallet was open and obvious. Specifically, Defendant argues that under Delaware law, because the condition was open and obvious, it is not liable for injuries to any business invitee's physical injuries. Therefore, Defendant argues that summary judgment must be granted.
On September 6, 2011, Plaintiffs filed their Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs argue that the forklift driver had a duty to warn Mr. Staedt that he backing up, and of the wooden pallet left on the sales room floor. They argue, but for the immediate danger of the forklift backing up, Mr. Staedt would not have stepped back and tripped over the wooden pallet. Therefore, genuine issues of material fact concerning a duty to warn and causation still exist. For these reasons, Plaintiffs assert that summary judgment must be denied.
Standard of Review
The Court may grant summary judgment if "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 part is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law." The moving party bears the initial burden of showing that no material issues of fact are present. Once such a showing is made, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to demonstrate that there are material issues of fact in dispute. In considering a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view the record in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. "Summary judgment will not be granted when a more thorough inquiry into the facts is desirable to clarify the application of the law to the circumstances."
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56(c); Burkhart v. Davies, 602 A.2d 56, 59 (Del. 1991).
Moore v. Sizemore, 405 A.2d 679, 680 (Del. 1979).
Id. at 681.
Burkhart, 602 A.2d at 59.
Phillip-Postle v. BJ Prods., Inc., 2006 WL 1720073, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 26, 2006).
Discussion
Pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 56, summary judgment is inappropriate in this case. "Generally speaking, issues of negligence are not susceptible of summary adjudication. . . . [Q]uestions of proximate cause except in rare cases are questions of fact ordinarily to be submitted to the jury for decision." Therefore, summary judgment will be granted only when there is an absence of a genuine issue of any material fact as to negligence or proximate cause.Under Delaware law, to succeed under a negligence claim, a plaintiff must prove: (1) that the defendant owed plaintiff a duty and (2) the "breach of that duty proximately caused plaintiff's injury." Here, the two parties are a landowner (Defendant) and business invitees (Plaintiffs). Under such relationship, a landowner has a duty to employ reasonable measures to warn or protect business invitees of a condition that poses unreasonable risk of harm if they know or should know of such condition.
Dilks v. Morris, 2005 WL 445530, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 25, 2005).
Id.
The Delaware Supreme Court held in Koutoufaris v. Dick, that a business invitee may still recover for injuries if they knew of the dangerous condition. In Dilks v. Morris, the plaintiff sued the defendant for injuries sustained when she fell into a hidden construction "ditch." The defendants argued that because debris, nails, and various other construction materials were open and obvious, they were not required to provide a warning. The court denied the motion for summary judgment because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the proximate cause of her injuries.
604 A.2d 390, 398 (Del. 1992).
2005 WL 445530, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 25, 2005).
Id.
Id. at *2.
Id.
Similar to the defendants in Dilks, Defendant argues that because (1) Plaintiffs acknowledge in their depositions that the wooden pallet was on the floor the entire time prior to the incident; and (2) Plaintiffs agree that the pallet was not hidden, the wooden pallet was open and obvious. Therefore, they argue, they had no duty to warn.
However, when viewing the record in light most favorable to the non-moving party, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to the proximate cause of Mr. Staedt's injuries.
As a genuine issue of material facts exists as to the proximate cause and whether Defendant fulfilled its duty in warning and protecting Plaintiff, summary judgment is DENIED.