Opinion
C.A. No. 00C-11-058 WCC
Submitted: July 3, 2002
Decided: August 30, 2002
On Plaintiff's Motion for Costs and Sanctions. Denied.
Lawrence A. Ramunno, Esquire, Wilmington, DE.
Charles Coates, Esquire, Newark, DE.
Dear Counsel:
The Court has before it a request for costs pursuant to Rule 37(c) filed by the Plaintiff, Betty Callery. In response to the Motion, the Defendant has provided a copy of the Request for Admissions filed by Ms. Callery and the Defendant's response to said request. It is these responses that the Plaintiff asserts justifies the imposition of the sanction of costs. This litigation was a result of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on October 25, 1999 between vehicles operated by Ms. Callery and Mr. Lopez. The accident occurred at the intersection of Route 40 and Fox Run Shopping Center when Ms. Callery attempted to cross Route 40 and enter that shopping center.
Rule 37 allows the Court to require a non-responsive party to pay reasonable expenses when requested admissions are proven at trial unless it finds one of the following conditions have been established:
(1) The request was held objectionable pursuant to Rule 36(a);
(2) The admission sought was of no substantial importance;
(3) The party failing to admit it had reasonable grounds to believe the parties might prevail on the matter, or;
(4) There was other good reason for the failure to admit.
Rule 37(c) Superior Court Civil Rules.
In this case it is fair to characterize Plaintiff's request for admissions as asking the Defendant to admit to the core issues of causation and the necessity of the treatment rendered to the Plaintiff. These were the precise issues in dispute during the trial, and the jury's verdict reflects that the Plaintiff's position was anything but overwhelming. By the very nature of the jury's verdict where the liability was divided 60/40 there is a reasonable inference that defense counsel's decision that he would perhaps prevail on these issues during trial was appropriate. The mere fact that he did not totally persuade the jury of his opinion does not render that judgment unreasonable. This is also not a case where counsel for the Defendant has been unresponsive to the request or exercised bad faith in his responsibility to respond to the requests made by the Plaintiff.
As a result of the above, the Court having considered the responses to the requests for admissions and in light of the jury's verdict, it finds the Plaintiff's request under Rule 37 for sanctions is inappropriate as the Defendant had a reasonable basis to believe that he may prevail on these issues at trial. Therefore, the Motion is hereby denied.