Armstrong v. Jewish Federation of Delaware, Inc.
N15C-07-078 RRC
Del. Super. Ct.Apr 3, 2017Background
- On Sept. 23, 2013 Charles Armstrong slipped on the third step descending into a hot tub at the Jewish Community Center and injured his shoulder, thigh, and hip.
- Armstrong sued Jewish Federation of Delaware claiming negligent maintenance: insufficient/short handrails and failure to install a non-slip surface on stainless steel steps (among other allegations).
- Trial scheduling order required plaintiff expert disclosures by May 20, 2016; plaintiff identified only a medical expert then. Defendant disclosed a liability expert (engineer) who opined the hot tub and handrails complied with code and that Armstrong misstepped.
- Plaintiff belatedly (Nov. 7, 2016) identified a sports/recreation/aquatics expert (Maria Bella) in interrogatory responses but produced no report or CV; disclosure was after the deadline and lacked substantive bases.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiff failed to present expert evidence establishing the applicable standard of care or breach for handrails or steps; court granted summary judgment for defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff established a duty/breach re: handrails | Armstrong: landowner owes reasonable care to invitees; handrail length/position rendered it unsafe; expert not required | Jewish Fed.: no expert shows handrail was insufficient; technical installation/design issues are beyond juror knowledge | Court: Expert required; plaintiff produced no timely, adequate liability expert; summary judgment for defendant |
| Whether plaintiff established a duty/breach re: steps (non‑slip surface) | Armstrong: steps were slippery stainless steel and should have had non‑slip surface; later installation of protective strips shows control/ability; expert not required | Jewish Fed.: no expert opining duty to install non‑slip surface; slippery condition is open and obvious; technical standards beyond juror knowledge | Court: Expert required to show duty and what constitutes a "non‑slip" surface; plaintiff failed to provide one; summary judgment for defendant |
| Timeliness and sufficiency of plaintiff's expert disclosure | Armstrong: identified sports/aquatics expert in Nov. 2016 and counsel described expected opinions | Jewish Fed.: disclosure was untimely and conclusory; lacked report/grounds and was counsel‑based, preventing meaningful cross‑examination | Court: Disclosure was both untimely and substantively deficient under Rule 26(b)(4); expert excluded |
| Whether plaintiff could rely on cross‑examination of defendant's expert instead of presenting own expert | Armstrong: could use cross‑examination of defendant's expert to create issue of fact | Jewish Fed.: plaintiff bears burden to present expert proof on standard of care; cross‑exam insufficient if plaintiff offers no opinion | Court: Plaintiff cannot rely solely on cross‑examination; must present its own expert to meet burden; judgment for defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- LaPoint v. AmerisourceBergen Corp., 970 A.2d 185 (Del. 2009) (summary judgment standard and viewing facts in favor of nonmoving party)
- Sammons v. Doctors for Emergency Services, P.A., 913 A.2d 519 (Del. 2006) (Rule 26 expert disclosures must include bases for opinions; parties must disclose expert reasoning)
- Christian v. Counseling Resource Assocs., Inc., 60 A.3d 1083 (Del. 2013) (scheduling‑order/compliance principles for expert discovery and need to seek court amendment for extensions)