Opinion
C.A. No. 00C-01-013
Submitted: September 28, 2000
Decided: December 8, 2000.
Dear Counsel:
This letter sets forth my reasons for denying Plaintiffs pending Motion to Add a Party pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 19.
Facts and Stage of the Proceeding
On January 27, 2000, Plaintiff, Eugene A. Matthews, filed a complaint alleging Defendant, Shawn Lloyd Neal, negligently struck him with a car in a parking lot on March 13, 1998. On August 7, 2000, Plaintiff filed a motion pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 19 that sought to add Defendant's grandfather, William Neal, as a party. At the time of the accident, Defendant, a minor, was driving William Neal's car (with William Neal's permission).
Discussion
Defendant makes two arguments against adding William Neal as a party. Because the first argument effectively prevents the addition of a party, this Court will not discuss the second argument.
Defendant argues that William Neal should not be joined as a party because the applicable statute, 21 Del. C. § 6106 ("§ 6106"), which imposes joint and several liability for the negligence of minor drivers on the owner of the car, pertains only to accidents that occur "upon the highway" and does not include accidents which occur in a private parking lot. Plaintiff responds with three arguments. First,Westergreen v. King, Del. Super., 99 A.2d 356 (1953), states that the purpose of§ 6106 is to make the owner of an automobile liable to third persons injured by a minor's negligence. Second, he claims that Kohanovich v. Youree, Del. Supr., 147 A.2d 655 (1959) (allowing service of process against a non-resident driver for an incident which occurred in a private parking lot) permits a definition of "highway" to include incidental areas under § 6106. Lastly, Defendant points out that the rule of Sneddon v. Nationwide Insurance, Del. Super., C.A. No. 93C-12-263, Quillen, J. (April 12, 1995) (Mem. Op.) allows broad interpretations of remedial statutes.
The statute, titled "Liability of owner for negligence of minor, " reads: Every owner of a motor vehicle who causes or knowingly permits a minor under the age of IS years to drive such vehicle upon a highway and any person who gives or furnishes a motor vehicle to such minor shall be jointly and severally liable with such minor for any damages caused by the negligence of such minor in driving such vehicle, and the negligence of such minor shall be imputed to such owner or such person for all purposes of civil damages.
Nonetheless, it is well established Delaware law that accidents which occur off of highways are not within the purview § 6106. This identical issue was considered in Young v, Reynoso Lee, Del. Super.. C.A. No. 97C-07-013. Graves, J. (Nov. 24, 1997) (Letter Op.). Therein, the Court granted the defendant's Motion to Dismiss an action based on an incident which involved an accident in a business's parking lot. Citing Hess v. Carmine, Del. Super., 396 A.2d 173, 175 (1978), and Thompson v. Ryan, Del. Super., No. 447, Christie, J. (Oct. 3, 1977), both of which found that § 6106 did not apply to accidents occurring on private property, this Court stated:
While it may seem unfair.., to be injured by the negligence of a minor in a restaurant parking lot or a mall parking lot and not have the opportunity to recover against the parents, it is the law as construed by this Court for the past twenty years. If the Legislature believed that the result was wrong, they have had ample opportunity to amend the statute.Young, supra, at 2. Plaintiff offers no compelling reasons or changed circumstances to ignore the holdings in Young, Hess, and Thompson, and under principles of stare decisis, this Court is required to follow them. Cohen v. Krigstein, Del. Super., 114 A.2d 225 (1955).
Because the location of the accident precludes Plaintiff from seeking to add William Neal under § 6106, Defendant's argument, concerning a statute of limitations objection, is moot.
Conclusion
Plaintiff's Motion to Add a Party is denied because the accident forming the basis of Plaintiffs action occurred on private property. It is not a public "highway" and, consequently, § 6106 is inapplicable.