Cannon v. Bolden
S15C-02-021 THG
| Del. Super. Ct. | Jan 3, 2018Background
- Collision on Feb. 21, 2013 at Brickyard Road & Sussex Highway: Plaintiff Thorrhonda Cannon stopped on Brickyard and was struck by a 2012 Ford Focus driven by Melva Bolden; Plaintiff injured.
- The Ford Focus was a rental from Enterprise entities (Enterprise Defendants); Bolden was listed as an additional driver on the rental agreement.
- Defendant Jason Neal (owner/operator of C&C Repair) arranged and paid for Bolden’s rental while servicing her car; he completed the rental paperwork at Enterprise and observed Bolden drive off.
- Plaintiff alleges Bolden drove without headlights and sues Bolden, the Enterprise Defendants, and Neal asserting agency, negligent entrustment, and failure-to-instruct theories against Neal.
- Neal submitted an affidavit that the vehicle’s headlights were on when Bolden left the lot; Bolden testified the headlights illuminated when she started the car and said she would not have turned them on even if instructed.
- Court considered Neal’s motion for summary judgment and granted it, finding no triable issues of fact as to Neal’s liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agency | Neal and Enterprise each failed to oversee employees/agents who failed to ensure Bolden was trained on headlights | No agency relationship between Neal and Enterprise; Neal was a customer who rented a car | No agency; Plaintiff failed to prove an agency relationship; claim fails |
| Negligent entrustment | Neal (and Enterprise) negligently entrusted the Ford to Bolden without ascertaining competence re: headlamps | Neal had no knowledge Bolden was reckless/incompetent; Plaintiff offers no evidence to rebut Neal’s sworn affidavit | Claim fails: Plaintiff cannot prove elements of negligent entrustment |
| Failure to instruct | Neal, as a mechanic with special knowledge, had a duty to instruct Bolden on headlight operation | No legal authority creates such a duty; imposing it would be unreasonable; any instruction would not have changed Bolden’s conduct | Even assuming a duty, lack of proximate causation (Bolden testified she would not have turned on lights) defeats the claim |
| Summary judgment standard | N/A (procedural) | Neal met burden; non-moving party must produce evidence of material fact | Summary judgment appropriate where no genuine issue of material fact; granted for Neal |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Sizemore, 405 A.2d 679 (Del. 1979) (standard for summary judgment burden-shifting)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (nonmoving party must produce evidence showing genuine issue for trial)
- Burkhart v. Davies, 602 A.2d 56 (Del. 1991) (summary judgment principles reaffirmed)
- Ebersole v. Lowengrub, 180 A.2d 467 (Del. 1962) (court may grant judgment as matter of law when facts insufficient)
- Duphily v. Delaware Elec. Coop., Inc., 662 A.2d 821 (Del. 1995) (elements of negligence require duty, breach, proximate cause, and injury)
- Fritz v. Yeager, 790 A.2d 469 (Del. 2002) (court determines existence of legal duty as matter of law)