Rossman v. Lincoln Property Co.

Full title: Rossman v. Lincoln Property Co., Inc

Court: Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County

Date published: Mar 5, 2008

CA No. 06C-09-169 (SCD) (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 5, 2008)

Opinion

CA No. 06C-09-169 (SCD).

March 5, 2008.

Michele D. Allen, Esq. Wilmington, DE.

Ronald W. Hartnett, Jr., Esq. Wilmington, DE.

SUSAN C. DEL PESCO, Judge

Dear Counsel:

I have reviewed the motion for summary judgment and the briefs which support and oppose the motion. As you know, this matter was scheduled for presentation on February 15, 2008, and continued by me.

The record provided, when viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, is sufficient to create a fact issue on the claim of negligence, and the defenses of assumption of risk and comparative negligence.¹

1 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56; Merrill v. Crothall-American, Inc., 606 A.2d 96, 99 (Del. 1992).

Plaintiff is not required to provide expert testimony on issues which do not require specialized knowledge.² The liability theories here, related to leaf removal and adequacy of illumination, are not so clearly outside the scope of ordinary experience as to make expert testimony essential.

2 D.R.E. 701; Money v. Manville Corp. Asbestos Comp. Trust Fund, 596 A.2d 1372, 1375 (Del. 1991).

The motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.