Opinion
Civil Action No. 06C-06-024 WCC.
Submitted: May 14, 2008.
Decided: June 6, 2008.
Upon Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment — DENIED.
Stephen F. Dryden, Esquire, Wilmington, DE.
W. Christopher Componovo, Esquire, Wilmington, DE.
Dear Counsel:
The Court has again reviewed the motion filed in the above-captioned matter, the Plaintiff's response, and the cases cited by counsel during their argument. The Court finds that in viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, there continues to be factual disputes that prevent the Court from granting the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Moore v. Sizemoore, 405 A.2d 679, 680 (Del. 1979).
In summary, the Plaintiff asserts that when she fell on Acme Market property, her daughter was called to the scene. After some communication with her mother, the daughter observed an object believed to be a piece of wood near the bottom of the food rack that appears to have been holding Tastykakes. There were no pictures taken of the scene nor does there appear to be evidence of this object other than the testimony from the daughter. However, when the Court considers this testimony together with that of the Plaintiff regarding how she fell and the confirmation by the Acme management that there was such a display in the area of the fall, the Court believes the Plaintiff is entitled to present the evidence to a jury for their consideration. While there may be other reasonable explanation for the Plaintiff's fall such as the failure to take her medication that day or a vertigo attack, whether the Plaintiff can establish her burden will be up to the jury to decide once they have heard all the evidence and assessed the credibility of the witnesses.
Therefore, the Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.