Donovan v. Wawa, Inc., N16C-05-068 CLS

Plaintiff Lisa Donovan sued Wawa after slipping on discarded sandwich pieces ("hoagie guts") in a Wawa parking lot on June 5, 2014, alleging premises negligence.
Defendant conceded Plaintiff was a business invitee and thus owed a duty to keep premises reasonably safe, and moved for summary judgment.
Wawa argued Plaintiff needed an expert to establish the standard of care and proximate cause, asserting the negligence theory was technical and beyond lay knowledge.
Plaintiff argued expert testimony was unnecessary because the need to sweep trash from a parking lot is within common lay knowledge and cited Hazel as analogous.
The court denied summary judgment, holding that whether Wawa negligently failed to clean up the hoagie debris is within a lay juror’s common knowledge; however, an allegation that Wawa failed to comply with applicable codes/regulations requires expert proof.
On discovery disputes, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel in part (including deposition of store supervisor Leah “Renee” Lust) and denied Wawa’s motion for a protective order; the court limited requests on unrelated criminal activity, intoxication statistics, and surveillance-spoliation-based requests as irrelevant or moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether expert testimony is required to establish standard of care for parking‑lot debris causing a slip	No — common lay knowledge suffices; analogous to Hazel	Yes — proximate cause and standard are technical; expert required	No expert required for debris cleanup issue; expert required for code/regulation allegation
Whether summary judgment should be granted for Defendant	There are factual disputes; summary judgment inappropriate	No genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment proper	Summary judgment denied — genuine factual issues remain
Scope of discoverable store records (staffing, safety kits, manager meeting records)	Relevant and discoverable if tailored to incident	Irrelevant, privileged, burdensome; may be trade secrets	Partial compel: tailored operational and safety records allowed; trade‑secret claim not shown
Requests about criminal activity/intoxication/store hours and surveillance spoliation	Seeks information relevant to foreseeability and practices	Irrelevant, unduly burdensome; surveillance issue moot as Wawa conceded possible spoliation instruction	Denied as overbroad/irrelevant or moot; deposition of supervisor permitted

Hazel v. Delaware Supermarkets, Inc., 953 A.2d 705 (Del. 2008) (lay jurors can determine whether commonplace store hazards create unsafe conditions without expert testimony)
Woods v. Prices Corner Shopping Center Merchants Ass'n, 541 A.2d 574 (Del. Super. 1988) (business-operator duty to invitees includes reasonable opportunity to correct hazardous conditions)