Opinion
C.A. No. 04C-05-047 RBY.
Submitted: March 7, 2006.
Decided: March 20, 2006.
Upon Defendants' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. Granted.
Jeffrey S. Friedman, Esquire of Silverman McDonald Friedman, Wilmington, Delaware; attorneys for the Plaintiffs.
Robert K. Pearce, Esquire of Ferry Joseph Pearce, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; attorneys for the Defendants.
ORDER
Following trial, the Defendants moved for a Judgment as a Matter of Law pursuant to Rule 50(a) at the close of the evidence on February 15, 2006, which the Court declined to grant and allowed the matter to go to a jury. On February 16, 2006, the jury advised that they could not reach an unanimous verdict and a mistrial was declared. Under Rule 50(b), a party may renew a Rule 50 motion within ten (10) days requesting the entry of a judgment as a matter of law.
Standard of Review
In considering such a motion, both parties agree that the Court does not weigh the evidence, but rather, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, and, drawing all favorable inference therefrom, determine if a verdict may be found for the party having the burden. In any event, this Court will not substitute its own judgment of the facts or reverse because it disagrees with the verdict. The moving party bears the burden of showing there are no material facts at issue. In addition, the Court's function is to examine the record to determine whether genuine issues of material fact exist. Further, while we view all facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, uncontroverted evidence must be taken as true.
See Gass v. Traux, 2002 WL 1426537.
See Moore v. Som, Inc., 2005 WL 1654601 citing Mumford v. Paris, 2003 WL 231611.
Ehrsole v. Lowengrub, 180 A.2d (Del.Super. 1962).
Oliver B. Cannon Sons, Inc. v. Doer-Oliver, Inc., 312 A.2d 322, 325 (Del.Super. 1973).
This case concerns a fall occurring on October 8, 2002 from an exterior stairway due to the Defendants not maintaining the handrail in proper condition. The Plaintiff, Mr. Custis, was apparently injured as he stepped off the stairwell with both feet or one foot while maneuvering furniture which became stuck during the course of his employment. The testimony is undisputed that the handrail gave way or pulled out of its supports as Mr. Custis tried to exit the stairwell. Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to maintain the handrail in a safe condition and that the Defendants as landowners must inspect the premises, including the stairway handrail.
The law is clear for business invitees. A landowner owes a duty to the public to see that the parts of the premises ordinarily used by customers are kept in a safe condition. With this duty, the landowner is responsible for injuries that are caused by defects or conditions that the landowner had actual notice of or could have discovered by a reasonably prudent inspection.
DiSabatino Brothers, Inc. v. Biao, 366 A.2d 508 (1976).
Under Delaware law, generally the plaintiff must show that there was a dangerous or defective condition in the defendant's store [or place of business], and that the condition . . . was permitted to remain after notice of its existence had come or should have come to the attention of the defendant, or its employees.
Kanoy v. Crothall American, Inc., 1988 WL 15367.
In the case sub judice, the Court instructed the jury that the mere fact that an accident occurred is not proof of Defendants' negligence. The problem with this case is that there is no evidence which tends to show that there was a defect in the handrail or that the Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge showing a defect. In fact, we have the uncontroverted testimony of Frederick S. Roland, P.E., an engineering expert, who testified that the railing meets applicable code requirements to withstand 200 pounds of a static load. He also testified that whether the Plaintiff had one foot on the stairway and one foot off, or both feet off the stairway as testified by Mr. Custis' supervisor, Mr. Hicks, an eyewitness, the Plaintiff still imparted an impact load of 400 pounds to the railing.
White v. Clark, 1998 WL 960735.
Whether or not there was an inspection of the railing before the event, Mr. Hicks testified that it was "solid" just prior to Plaintiff's daredevil act to swing out on the railing. The act of the handrail giving way under the circumstance described by the witness who testified does not mean that the handrail was defective. In addition, the railing was not used in the manner intended. A plaintiff still has the ultimate burden of proving a causal connection between an act by the defendant and the plaintiff's accident.
Brown v. Gartside, et al., 2004 WL 2828061.
Conclusion
In summary, the Plaintiff has provided no evidence to support the fact that the proprietors knew that the railing was defective or, of an actual or constructive defect or dangerous condition. The act that Plaintiff engaged in was deliberate — swinging out over the railing to let himself down to the ground because of a piece of furniture blocking the stairway. The railing was used in a manner not intended by the owner.Therefore, the motion of the Defendants for a Judgment as a Matter of Law is granted. IT IS SO ORDERED.