Opinion
C.A. No. K15C-02-029 RBY
05-23-2016
MONIQUE DOWNS, Plaintiff, v. CHAD R. LINGENFELDER, Defendants
William D. Fletcher, Jr., Esquire, Schmittinger & Rodriguez, Dover, Delaware for Plaintiff. Cynthia G. Bean, Esquire, Law Office of Cynthia G. Beam, Newark, Delaware for Defendant.
In and For Kent County Upon Consideration of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
DENIED OPINION William D. Fletcher, Jr., Esquire, Schmittinger & Rodriguez, Dover, Delaware for Plaintiff. Cynthia G. Bean, Esquire, Law Office of Cynthia G. Beam, Newark, Delaware for Defendant. Young, J.
SUMMARY
Monique Downs ("Plaintiff") filed an action against Chad Lingenfelder ("Defendant") for damages arising out of an alleged motor vehicle collision. Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Because the central material issue of fact remains in dispute, Defendant's Motion is DENIED.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's truck hit her car from behind on the morning of December 10, 2013. Defendant admits to driving in the area at that time, but denies that his car made contact with Plaintiff's vehicle. Plaintiff called the police to investigate the alleged accident at the time it occurred. A police officer arrived and assessed the scene but did not personally witness the events involved. Subsequently, Defendant hired an accident reconstruction expert to create a report. The expert did not inspect either the scene or the involved vehicles in person.
Plaintiff filed suit in February 2015, alleging that personal injury and property damage. In response, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting that the accident never occurred.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is appropriate where the record exhibits no genuine issue of material fact so that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. "Summary judgment may not be granted if the record indicates that a material fact is in dispute, or if it seems desirable to inquire more thoroughly into the facts in order to clarify the application of the law to the circumstances." The court should consider the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
Tedesco v. Harris, 2006 WL 1817086 (Del. Super. June 15, 2006).
Id.
Id. --------
DISCUSSION
Defendant concedes that he was driving in the area of the accident in the truck alleged to have struck Plaintiff's car. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant struck her vehicle from behind, while Defendant vigorously denies this. There are no available eyewitnesses to the incident. As a result, the central issue in this case remains in dispute. Whether or not Defendant's truck struck Plaintiff's car from behind is a fact question for the jury. Therefore, summary judgment is inappropriate at this time.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
/s/ Robert B. Young
J. RBY/dsc
Via File and ServeXpress
oc: Prothonotary
cc: Counsel of Record