Opinion
C.A. No. 09C-05-213-JRJ.
Date Submitted: July 19, 2010.
Date Decided: July 22, 2010.
Upon Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment — DENIED.
D. V. Miika Roggio, Esq., Silverman, McDonald Friedman, Wilmington, DE.
Stephen P. Casarino, Esq., Casarino, Christman Shalk, Wilmington, DE.
Dear Counsel:
In follow up to the hearing on July 19, 2010, I have reviewed Hazel v. Del. Supermarkets, Inc., 953 A.2d 705 (Del. 2008) and re-reviewed the parties' submissions. It is a very close call, but in light of Hazel, the Court will not grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court will let the jury decide inter alia: (1) whether the bank was negligent for (a) failing to post a sign warning ATM users to proceed cautiously because it was raining and the floor might be wet, or (b) failing to have a mat covering the tile floor; and (2) whether the plaintiff was comparatively negligent (i.e. whether she failed to proceed with caution although she knew that it was raining, (b) her footwear was wet and (c) the tile might be wet).
IT IS SO ORDERED.