Helm v. 206 Massachusetts Avenue, LLC
107 A.3d 1074
| Del. | 2014Background
- Gail and Scott Helm rented a Lewes, DE beach house (206 Massachusetts Ave.) for a week beginning July 10, 2010; Gail fell on the interior stairs that night and suffered significant foot injuries.
- Gail had discovered unclean conditions earlier and removed rugs to the first-floor laundry; around 11:00 p.m. she descended a dark stairway to move the rugs and acknowledged seeing a safety issue before proceeding.
- There was no light switch at the top of the stairs controlling the foyer light; the stairwell was dark and Gail did not ask for assistance or use a flashlight.
- Gail testified she used the banister, felt a curl near the bottom, mis-stepped and fell when her foot missed the last step; she could not grasp the handrail due to its shape.
- Plaintiffs sued the rental agent (Gallo Realty) and the owner (206 Massachusetts Ave., LLC) for negligence and breach of contract; Superior Court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding Gail primarily assumed the risk or was >50% negligent.
- Supreme Court reversed: held primary assumption of risk did not apply and that comparative negligence/secondary assumption of risk is a fact question for the jury; dismissals of contract and indemnification issues were intertwined with the error and not addressed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether primary assumption of risk bars recovery | Helm: no express consent or bargained shift of duty; not a sports-like risk | Defendants: Gail knowingly encountered the danger and assumed the risk | Court: Primary assumption of risk inapplicable; no express relinquishment of defendant duty |
| Whether Gail's comparative negligence exceeds 50% as a matter of law | Helm: disputed facts preclude finding >50% negligence on summary judgment | Defendants: testimony shows Gail knew of danger and proceeded, so her fault >50% | Court: Whether Gail's secondary assumption of risk renders her >50% negligent is a question of fact for the jury; summary judgment improper |
| Whether secondary assumption of risk subsumes plaintiff's conduct | Helm: her conduct is classic secondary assumption of risk and subject to comparative apportionment | Defendants: argue plaintiff’s conduct was unreasonably risky enough to bar recovery | Court: Secondary assumption of risk is part of comparative negligence and must be apportioned by the jury |
| Whether contract/indemnification defenses bar relief | Helm: breach of contract claim and indemnity issues remain viable and were not properly decided | Defendants: indemnification and contract language shield defendants | Court: Superior Court’s treatment of contract/indemnity was cursory and entwined with erroneous negligence rulings; Court declines to decide indemnity here and remands all claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Koutoufaris v. Dick, 604 A.2d 390 (Del. 1992) (distinguishes primary vs. secondary assumption of risk; secondary subsumed into comparative negligence)
- Spencer v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP, 930 A.2d 881 (Del. 2007) (secondary assumption of risk analyzed under comparative negligence; factual inquiry for jury)
- Trieval v. Sabo, 714 A.2d 742 (Del. 1998) (rare circumstances permit summary judgment when plaintiff's negligence necessarily exceeds defendant's)
- Bib v. Merlonghi, 252 A.2d 548 (Del. 1969) (pre-comparative negligence era case discussing assumption of risk and contributory negligence)
- Culver v. Bennett, 588 A.2d 1094 (Del. 1991) (explains Delaware modified comparative negligence statute and effect of plaintiff fault)