Fidance v. City of Wilmington
N17C-04-134 CLS
| Del. Super. Ct. | Sep 29, 2017Background
- Plaintiff alleged she tripped and fell on a defective sidewalk on May 3, 2015 at Ed Oliver Golf Club (800 N. DuPont Rd., Wilmington) while attending a social event in the club’s banquet (Dover) room.
- Defendants: City of Wilmington (owner/operator of the public golf course/facility) and Billy Casper Golf, LLC and Billy Casper Golf Management, Inc. (private operators/managers).
- Plaintiff sued for negligence/premises liability; claims that the City and Billy Casper had control and a duty to maintain the premises.
- City moved to dismiss asserting municipal immunity under the County and Municipal Tort Claims Act, 10 Del. C. §§ 4011–4012, and argued the golf course is a public outdoor recreation facility excluded from the § 4012 waiver.
- Plaintiff responded that the banquet hall (Dover Room) is a public building with appurtenances (sidewalk) and that she was on the property for a non-golf social function, bringing the claim within the § 4012 exception to immunity.
- Billy Casper moved to dismiss for failure to plead specific negligent acts; court denied that motion because notice pleading sufficed at this stage and discovery remained open.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City is immune under the County and Municipal Tort Claims Act for injuries from a sidewalk defect | The sidewalk is an appurtenance to the Dover Room (a public building) and falls within § 4012(2) exception to immunity because plaintiff was attending a banquet, not golfing | The property is primarily designed for public outdoor recreation (a golf course); § 4012(2) excludes facilities designed for public outdoor recreation, and § 4011(b)(6) bars sidewalk-defect claims | Court granted City’s motion: plaintiff’s complaint falls within § 4011(b)(6) and § 4012(2) recreation exception; City immune as a matter of law |
| Whether Billy Casper’s motion to dismiss should be granted for failure to allege specific negligent acts | Plaintiff pleaded she tripped on a defective sidewalk and has photographs; Delaware is a notice-pleading state so general notice suffices | Billy Casper argued plaintiff failed to identify the dangerous defect (citing authority) | Court denied Billy Casper’s motion: complaint gives general notice and discovery remains open |
Key Cases Cited
- Spence v. Funk, 396 A.2d 967 (Del. 1978) (standard for sufficiency of pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ramunno v. Cawley, 705 A.2d 1029 (Del. 1998) (pleading rules: accept well-pleaded allegations and draw inferences for non-movant)
- Diamond State Telephone Co. v. University of Delaware, 269 A.2d 52 (Del. 1970) (dismissal standard when complaint is without merit as a matter of law)
- Central Mortgage Co. v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, 27 A.3d 531 (Del. 2011) (cited for pleading/pleading-sufficiency principles)
- Nix v. Sawyer, 466 A.2d 407 (Del. Super. Ct. 1983) (framework for treating allegations as true on a motion to dismiss)