Bishop v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company, K14C-11-004 RBY

March 15, 2014 rear-end collision on southbound Route 13 near Cheswold; Bishop (plaintiff) struck the rear of Gohanna’s car and claims injury.
Bishop contends the collision resulted from a prolonged road-rage episode: Gohanna drove beside and harassed Kimberly Keeler, then allegedly cut in front of Keeler and slammed on his brakes.
Defendants (Progressive and Encompass) contend Gohanna was simply slowing to make a turn and dispute Bishop’s account that Bishop was five car lengths behind and traveling at the speed limit.
Bishop sued defendants and the other drivers; the other drivers (Gohanna and Keeler) were later dismissed; defendants moved for summary judgment and Bishop moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of his recklessness.
Central legal question: whether factual disputes about (a) prior road-rage conduct and (b) Bishop’s following speed/distance create genuine issues of material fact about reckless driving under 21 Del. C. § 4175, which would affect negligence per se and comparative-fault analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants’ insureds engaged in reckless driving (21 Del. C. § 4175) that could make them liable regardless of comparative fault	Gohanna’s alleged road-rage conduct caused an abrupt stop and was not mere negligence, so summary judgment for defendants is inappropriate	Gohanna merely slowed to turn; no statute violation; no sufficient evidence to hold defendants liable	Denied defendants’ summary judgment: factual dispute over road-rage conduct could support a § 4175 violation and negate comparative-fault bar
Whether Bishop is reckless as a matter of law under § 4175 (entitling him to partial summary judgment)	Bishop was five car lengths behind and obeying the speed limit, so he was not reckless	Expert and defendants dispute Bishop’s claimed speed/distance; if he was speeding or following too closely, that could be reckless	Denied Bishop’s partial summary judgment: factual disputes about speed/distance preclude ruling as to recklessness
Whether comparative negligence (over 50%) would bar Bishop’s recovery	Bishop: he was not reckless, so comparative fault applies normally	Defendants: even if Bishop negligent, defendants’ reckless conduct could make comparative fault irrelevant	Court: unresolved factual issues about defendants’ conduct mean comparative-fault questions cannot be resolved on summary judgment

Doherty v. State, 817 A.2d 804 (Del. 2002) (reckless driving upheld where passing and other unsafe conduct demonstrated wanton disregard for safety)
Sammons v. Ridgeway, 293 A.2d 547 (Del. 1972) (violation of a safety statute constitutes negligence per se)
United Vanguard Fund, Inc. v. Takecare, Inc., 693 A.2d 1076 (Del. 1997) (summary judgment standard: no genuine issue of material fact)
Wootten v. Kiger, 226 A.2d 238 (Del. 1967) (when facts permit only one reasonable inference, the question becomes one of law)