Daniels v. Dover Downs Hotel and Casino Valet Parking
K17C-02-013 JJC
| Del. Super. Ct. | May 9, 2017Background
- On January 1, 2017, Chad Ivan Daniels (pro se) attempted to use Dover Downs’ advertised free valet parking benefit for platinum/capital club members and was allegedly denied service by employee Jerome Wheeler.
- Wheeler told Daniels he had “abused the privilege,” was not tipping, and was argumentative.
- Daniels sued Dover Downs in Superior Court alleging breach of the platinum membership contract and sought large personal injury damages (pain and suffering).
- Dover Downs moved to dismiss under Superior Court Civ. R. 12(b)(6), arguing improper service/party identification, pleading defects, discovery noncompliance, and failure to state a claim.
- Court treated the pleading as a breach-of-contract claim and applied the Rule 12(b)(6) standard, giving pro se filings leniency but requiring adequate factual allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dover Downs breached the platinum membership contract by denying valet service | Daniels claims Dover Downs denied the contractual valet benefit, causing emotional harm | Dover Downs denies liability and challenges procedural defects and sufficiency of the claim | Dismissed: complaint fails to plead recoverable damages for breach of contract |
| Whether emotional distress damages are recoverable for breach of contract here | Daniels seeks pain and suffering for emotional distress | Dover Downs argues contract damages do not include emotional distress absent physical injury or IIED | Court held emotional distress damages unavailable for breach absent physical injury or actionable IIED |
| Whether pro se status excuses pleading defects | Daniels implicitly relies on leniency for pro se pleadings | Dover Downs argues formal pleading requirements and notice are not met | Court applied lenient standard but required sufficient facts; defects not excused where essential elements missing |
| Whether dismissal on other procedural grounds was warranted | Daniels filed amended complaints and did not cure deficiencies | Dover Downs raised improper service, misnaming, Rule 10(b)/9(g)/3(h) issues | Court did not reach procedural grounds after dismissing for failure to state a claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Spence v. Funk, 396 A.2d 967 (Del. 1978) (pleading standard: accept well-pleaded allegations as true)
- Johnson v. State, 442 A.2d 1362 (Del. 1982) (pro se pleadings judged by less stringent standard)
- VLIW Tech., LLC v. Hewlett–Packard Co., 840 A.2d 606 (Del. 2003) (breach of contract elements and notice pleading standard)
- Browne v. Saunders, 768 A.2d 467 (Del. 2001) (pro se litigant still must allege sufficient facts)
- E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Pressman, 679 A.2d 436 (Del. 1996) (emotional distress damages not recoverable for breach of contract absent physical injury or IIED)