Greenfield v. Budget of Delaware, Inc.
N16C-07-115 FWW
| Del. Super. Ct. | Oct 31, 2017Background
- Plaintiff (next friend/guardian for minor Ethan Ford) sued Budget Motor Lodge and several DFS employees alleging repeated abuse of Ethan while he lived at the motel and that Budget knew or should have known and failed to act.
- Original complaint was dismissed without prejudice as to DFS defendants; Plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging negligence, gross negligence, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Budget.
- Allegations against Budget: motel knowingly hosted dangerous/illegal activity, employees (including GM Dolly Dunn) had actual or constructive knowledge, failed to protect or notify authorities, and Ethan suffered harm while living at Budget through August 2014.
- Budget answered, asserted affirmative defenses, and moved for judgment on the pleadings under Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(c), arguing no duty was shown and that claims are time-barred by 10 Del. C. § 8107.
- Court treated Budget’s motion as Rule 12(c), accepted well-pled facts as true, and denied the motion, finding Plaintiff adequately pleaded a duty under Jardel and Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344 and that the action was timely filed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Budget owed a duty to protect a patron from third-party criminal acts | Budget, as an innkeeper/business open to the public, owed a heightened duty to protect invitees it knew were likely victims of crime | No special duty: proprietor is not insurer; allegations do not show a duty to protect against third-party criminal acts | Court: Duty exists under Jardel and Restatement § 344 where possessor knows or should know of likelihood of criminal conduct; pleadings adequate to show that duty |
| Whether the Amended Complaint pleads facts sufficient to state a negligence claim | Allegations of repeated criminal acts, Budget’s actual/constructive knowledge, and failure to act adequately plead negligence | Plaintiff failed to plead a breach of duty or sufficient facts to establish foreseeability and breach | Court: Well-pled facts and reasonable inferences suffice at Rule 12(c) stage; negligence claim survives |
| Whether Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the two-year statute of limitations (10 Del. C. § 8107) | Action was filed within two years of accrual (Plaintiff lived at motel through Aug 2014; complaint filed July 15, 2016) | Claims time-barred | Court: Claims timely filed; statute of limitations does not bar the action |
| Whether judgment on the pleadings is appropriate | N/A (Plaintiff opposes dismissal) | Motion under Rule 12(c) appropriate; pleadings insufficient | Court: Denied motion — factual inferences drawn for non-moving party; dismissal not appropriate at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Jardel Co., Inc. v. Hughes, 523 A.2d 518 (Del. 1987) (adopting Restatement § 344, holding landowners owe a residual duty to protect business invitees from foreseeable third-party criminal acts)
- Foster v. Winston-Salem Joint Venture, 281 S.E.2d 36 (N.C. 1981) (repetition of criminal activity can create foreseeability and duty to take precautions)
- Murphy v. Penn Fruit Co., 418 A.2d 480 (Pa. Super. 1980) (same: prior incidents may impose a duty to protect invitees)
- Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 407 N.E.2d 451 (N.Y. 1980) (repeated criminal activity may be sufficient to place proprietors on notice and create a duty to protect)