Opinion
C.A. Nos. 99C-03-131, 98C-07-191, 99C-05-277, 99C-03-252-WTQ
This case (99C-03-252) has been consolidated with the others for purposes of discovery. (Dkt. No. 38).
Date Argued: March 14, 2000.
Date Decided: March 15, 2000.
Letter Opinion and Order on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. — Motion DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.
Melanie K. Sharp, Esquire.
B. Wilson Redfeam, Esquire, Susan A. List, Esquire, Gilbert F. Shelsby, Jr., Esquire, Carrie I. Dayton, Esquire.
Dear Ms. Sharp, Mr. Redfeam, Ms. List, Mr. Shelsby and Ms. Dayton,
This is the Court's Letter Opinion and Order on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons stated herein, the substance of the Motion is DENIED without prejudice to renew and the Motion is GRANTED, in part, also without prejudice, insofar as it relates proper parties Defendant.
This is a car accident case where Mr. Cauffman was test driving a car with a sales agent, Elisa Weisheit, who worked for the Defendant Airport Dodge Incorporated. The Defendants have filed the current Motion for Summary Judgment claiming that the mere ownership of a vehicle at the time of the accident that was caused by the negligent operation by a prospective purchaser will not subject the dealer to liability.
In the course of the hearing, Ms. Sharp as counsel for the Plaintiff represented that she would not oppose the dismissal of two of the corporate entities, The Price Group Incorporated and The Price Family Limited Partners. In an effort to streamline this case, the Court will accept the representation of Mr. Redfeam that the sales representative, Elisa Weisheit, worked for Airport Dodge and the car Mr. Cauffman was driving is owned by Airport Dodge. Therefore, the Court will dismiss all of the Price Defendants except for Airport Dodge.
Mr. Redfeam also represented that, if it develops that the other Price Defendants presence in this case is appropriate, he will stipulate to their reentry and waive any statute of limitations defense. The dismissal therefore will be without prejudice.
Ms. Sharp has stated that she may be willing to stipulate to the dismissal of Elisa Weisheit from this case, but it appears that the Plaintiffs' respondeat superior claims depend in part on the degree of Ms. Weisheit's control of the car at the time of the accident. Therefore, the Court will not dismiss Elisa Weisheit on its own accord. I also understand there is a possibility that the claim of the minor will not be pursued but the Court takes no action in that regard.
The Plaintiffs have two basic claims against the Price Defendants. The first is a claim that Airport Dodge has failed to develop appropriate protocols and training of prospective purchasers and have failed to develop appropriate procedures concerning the obligations of sales people during test drives. The Plaintiffs also argue under a respondeat superior theory that the car driven by Cauffman was under the supervision and control of Ms. Weisheit as an employee of Airport Dodge. It seems premature to rule on that Motion currently because some dispute appears in the record. There is disagreement about the extent of control of Ms. Weisheit over the vehicle at the time of the accident. Whether that control is sufficient for an agency relationship to have occurred should not be determined from the current facts at this stage of the case. Therefore, Airport Dodge's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED without prejudice and the remaining Defendants can renew their Motion at the pretrial conference. By the time of the pretrial conference, the parties should have had an opportunity to mediate the case.
Because the parties seem to agree that Airport Dodge's insurance carrier will cover the claims here, it appears that there may be no practical difference as to whether Airport Dodge is in or out of the case as a Defendant.
For the foregoing reasons, the Price Defendants, excluding Airport Dodge and Ms. Weisheit, are DISMISSED and the remaining Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, all without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Sincerely,
William T. Quillen