Estate of Jean-Claudie Zabie v. Pramick, N20C-04-006 DJB

On April 5, 2018, Defendant Loretta Pramick, while exiting onto I‑95 via a 270° loop, encountered Plaintiff Jean‑Claude Zabie’s car stopped in the left merge lane; Pramick accelerated to merge, was blocked by a vehicle on I‑95, braked, moved to the right edge of the merge lane, and struck Zabie’s vehicle.
The complaint was filed April 1, 2020; counsel later learned Zabie died three months before filing (death unrelated to the crash) and the Estate was opened April 28, 2022.
Plaintiff’s discovery revealed Pramick’s husband (the only other known eyewitness) is deceased; Pramick is the only living eyewitness to the collision.
Pramick moved for summary judgment arguing no evidence contradicts her deposition account and thus no genuine issue of material fact exists.
The Estate argued (1) Pramick’s testimony is implausible, (2) her testimony still raises material factual questions (e.g., position of Zabie’s vehicle and timing of visibility), and (3) even under her testimony a jury could find negligence.
The court denied summary judgment: negligence questions are ordinarily for a jury, and this case is distinguishable from Coale v. Rowlands such that summary judgment is not appropriate on the record presented.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment is appropriate where the only living eyewitness is the defendant	Pramick’s account is implausible and still leaves factual disputes a jury could resolve	No evidence contradicts Pramick’s version; therefore no genuine issue of material fact exists	Denied — credibility and factual disputes remain; evidence construed for non‑movant
Whether Pramick’s testimony, if credited, still permits a finding of negligence	Even accepting her testimony, facts (vehicle position, when defendant could have seen the car) permit a reasonable jury to find negligence	If testimony is uncontradicted, only one inference (no negligence) should follow	Denied — court finds issues of negligence unresolved and for the jury
Whether this case is controlled by Coale v. Rowlands so summary judgment should be granted	Coale is distinguishable because here negligence is contested and facts are disputed	Coale supports summary judgment where only one reasonable inference exists	Denied — Coale is distinguishable; this is not the rare case warranting summary judgment

Coale v. Rowlands, 723 A.2d 395 (Del. 1998) (affirming summary judgment where record compelled only one reasonable inference)
Ebersole v. Lowengrub, 180 A.2d 467 (Del. 1962) (summary judgment standard and role of jury on negligence)
Jones v. Crawford, 1 A.3d 299 (Del. 2010) (negligence questions ordinarily submitted to jury)
Watson v. Shellhorn & Hill, Inc., 221 A.2d 506 (Del. 1966) (summary judgment appropriate only in rare, clear cases)
Moore v. Sizemore, 405 A.2d 679 (Del. 1979) (summary judgment burden allocation principles)
Hurtt v. Goleburn, 330 A.2d 134 (Del. 1974) (principles on granting summary judgment)