Devine v. MHC Waterford Estates, L.L.C.
N15C-03-016 AML
Del. Super. Ct.Oct 10, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Lawrence Devine owned/occupied a lot at Waterford Estates mobile home park where the lot was chronically saturated with standing water.
- Devine repeatedly complained to park management (calls, office visits, a meeting) over several years that the lot needed regrading to prevent standing water; management did not remediate.
- After a January 21, 2014 snowstorm, Devine shoveled snow on January 22, discovered a thick layer of ice on the sidewalk, and while spreading salt slipped and was injured.
- Devine sued for negligence (failure to correct stagnant water leading to ice), breach of the rental agreement (failure to regrade), and a contractual duty of fair dealing (later withdrawn).
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the tort claim is barred by the contract, that acquiescence/notice/assumption-of-risk defeat recovery, and that written notice was required by the lease.
- The court denied summary judgment on negligence and breach claims, finding factual disputes (notice, cause of ice, acquiescence, assumption of risk) and that statutory/common-law duties exist independent of the lease.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the rental contract bars tort claim | Devine: landlord has independent common-law and statutory duties to maintain lot and prevent stagnant water from accumulating and freezing | Defs: any duty arises solely from the lease, so tort claims are contract claims only | Court: tort claim allowed — common-law duty and 25 Del. C. § 7006 create independent duties, so tort not barred |
| Whether acquiescence estops breach claim | Devine: he repeatedly complained, so he did not acquiesce | Defs: Devine knew of condition and paid rent for years, implying acquiescence | Court: fact question for jury — disputed evidence on complaints vs. passive acceptance |
| Whether lack of notice defeats negligence claim | Devine: repeated complaints gave actual or at least constructive notice of standing water/its freeze risk | Defs: snowstorm caused ice; general awareness of freezing insufficient for notice of specific icy condition | Court: fact question — viewing evidence for plaintiff, jury could infer actual/constructive notice of standing water and risk of freezing |
| Whether Devine assumed the risk by clearing snow | Devine: ground was so saturated he had no choice but to stand on the sidewalk; lease allocation of snow removal does not equal assumption of Defs' negligence | Defs: lease makes resident responsible for snow/ice and Devine could have avoided standing on sidewalk | Court: fact question — disputed whether alternative (standing on ground) was available and whether lease shifts risk of landlord negligence |
Key Cases Cited
- Brzoska v. Olson, 668 A.2d 1355 (Del. 1995) (summary judgment standard and viewing evidence for nonmovant)
- Judah v. Delaware Trust Co., 378 A.2d 624 (Del. 1977) (summary judgment principles)
- Moore v. Sizemore, 405 A.2d 679 (Del. 1979) (summary judgment burden shifting)
- Young v. Saroukos, 185 A.2d 274 (Del. Super. 1962) (landlord duty to maintain premises reasonably safe)
- Greenstar, LLC v. Heller, 934 F. Supp. 2d 672 (D. Del. 2013) (limits on tort recovery where duties arise solely from contract)