Opinion
C.A. No. 97C-12-009.
Submitted: June 20, 2000.
Decided: June 29, 2000.
Upon Defendants' Motion for Reargument-Denied .
Dear Counsel and Mr. Hastings:
Defendants Lynette Donoway and Charles W. Willoughby have filed a motion for reargument pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 59 (e) from this Court's denial of their Motion for Summary Judgment on June 9, 2000. The manifest purpose of all Rule 59 motions is to afford the trial court an opportunity to correct errors upon reconsideration prior to an appeal. To prevail on reargument, the moving party must demonstrate that the Court "overlooked a precedent or legal principle that would have controlling effect, or that it has misapprehended the law or the facts such as would affect the outcome of the decision."
Monsanto Co. v. Aetna Cas. Surety Co., Del. Super., C.A. No. 88-JA-118, Ridgely, P.J. (Jan. 14, 1994) citing Wilshire Rest. Group, Inc. v. Ramada, Inc., Del. Ch., C.A. No. 11506, Jacobs, V.C. (Dec. 19, 1990) (Letter Op.).
The timeliness of the Defendants' Motion is not relevant because after reviewing the submissions of the parties, the Court does not find that it misapprehended the facts or the law. However, without disturbing its previous ruling, the Court would like to clarify its findings in light of the request by the Defendants.
The Court stated in its initial Order that it was clear that Defendants received a benefit from the presence of the Plaintiff on their property. By this statement, the Court was only considering the facts before it at the time of Summary Judgment and did not intend to imply that the Court was deciding as a matter of law that the Defendants received a benefit from the Plaintiffs presence and was not subject to the Guest Premises statute. As in Smith v. Henderson, Del. Supr., No. 329, 1998 (Aug. 10, 1999) (ORDER), which was previously cited by the Court, I am satisfied that the evidence presented to the Court on Summary Judgment, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, raises an issue of material fact for the jury to decide. It will be up to the jury to decide on the record to be presented by the parties that the value or benefit may be more than deminimus to the party in question. The Court is in no way stating whether the Guest Premises statute is applicable to the Defendants.
The second issue raised by the Defendants in their Motion is the applicability of the Guest Premises Statute to Mr. Willoughby. First and foremost, this issue was not raised in the Defendants' initial Motion for Summary Judgment and it would not be appropriate for the Court to consider a new argument at this time. Nevertheless, given the Court's previous clarification on its ruling, the same rationale would apply to the Guest Premises statute and Mr. Willoughby. It will be left to the discretion of the jury to determine whether the Guest Premises statute is applicable in the instant matter and the Court will not undertake this determination as to any Defendants before trial.
Therefore, the Defendants' Motion for Reargument is denied in as much as it asked the Court to re-visit its previous rulings. However, the Court's previous Order is clarified so that it is consistent with the rationale of this letter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.