Amoroso v. Enterprise Leasing Company of Philadelphia, LLC
N20C-10-001 FWW
| Del. Super. Ct. | Apr 13, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Kathryn Amoroso slipped and fell on a patch of ice at Enterprise Leasing Company of Philadelphia’s (Enterprise) Philadelphia Pike location and sued for negligence (failure to inspect, correct, warn, and permitting invitees into danger).
- Enterprise, a commercial tenant of Yale Avenue Associates (Yale), removed and then the case was remanded; Enterprise filed a third-party complaint against Yale and Amoroso later added Yale as a defendant.
- Enterprise moved for partial summary judgment arguing the lease gave Yale possession/control of the parking lot, so Enterprise had no duty to maintain the lot and cannot be liable for maintenance-related failures.
- Amoroso contends her amended complaint alleges direct negligence by Enterprise — failing to inspect, cure, warn, or direct customers away from a hazard it created — not merely a failure to maintain the lot; she also notes practical problems assigning liability to an absentee landlord that lacked notice of the hazard.
- The court reviewed Rule 56 standards and concluded Amoroso sufficiently alleged direct negligence distinct from a possessor’s maintenance duty; genuine issues of material fact remain and the motion for partial summary judgment was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Enterprise lacked possession/control of the parking lot and thus cannot be liable for failure to maintain it | Amoroso alleges direct negligence (failure to inspect/warn/cure) independent of maintenance duties | Enterprise points to the lease showing Yale retained possession/control of the lot, absolving Enterprise of maintenance duties | Denied — court found allegations of direct negligence separate from maintenance duties and factual disputes remain |
| Whether the amended complaint sufficiently pleads direct negligence (inspection/warning) rather than only a maintenance claim | Complaint alleges failure to inspect, warn, and redirect customers from a hazard Enterprise created | Enterprise argues the claim is effectively a maintenance claim barred by lack of possession/control | Held that the complaint does allege direct negligence and those issues present genuine factual disputes for a jury |
| Whether summary judgment is appropriate on these claims | Amoroso: factual disputes exist precluding summary judgment | Enterprise: undisputed facts entitle it to judgment as a matter of law | Denied — factual disputes exist; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Whether liability should be shifted to absentee landlord (Yale) | Amoroso notes impracticality and that landlord may have had no notice of a hazard Enterprise allegedly created | Enterprise seeks to shift responsibility to Yale under the lease/possession argument | Court did not resolve landlord liability here; factual issues about creation/notice remain for later determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 139 A.3d 845 (Del. 2015) (summary judgment standard under Rule 56)
- Moore v. Sizemore, 405 A.2d 679 (Del. 1979) (moving party’s initial burden on summary judgment)
- Brzoska v. Olson, 668 A.2d 1355 (Del. 1995) (burden shifts to non-moving party to show material factual disputes)
- Merrill v. Crothall‑Am., Inc., 606 A.2d 96 (Del. 1992) (evidence viewed in light most favorable to non-moving party)
- Ebersole v. Lowengrub, 180 A.2d 467 (Del. 1962) (deny summary judgment when factual inquiry is desirable)
- Wooten v. Kiger, 226 A.2d 238 (Del. 1967) (when only one reasonable inference exists, question becomes one of law)