Johnson v. Ray
N15C-03-147 ALR
Del. Super. Ct.May 23, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Lesley R. Johnson and Alize Ray sued Terminix and GEICO for injuries from a hit-and-run motor-vehicle incident on April 4, 2014.
- Plaintiffs allege their parked car was struck by a white truck bearing a Terminix logo while the truck fled the scene.
- Police report noted a white truck with a "Terminex (sic)" logo struck the car and continued.
- Plaintiffs’ recorded statements and interrogatory answers identify an eyewitness who reportedly identified the striking vehicle as a Terminix truck.
- Terminix moved for summary judgment arguing there is insufficient evidence that a Terminix employee operated the striking vehicle.
- GEICO opposed, arguing genuine factual disputes exist about whether a Terminix employee in the scope of employment caused the collision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence shows a Terminix vehicle/employee struck Plaintiffs' car | Johnson/Ray: eyewitness statements, police report, and plaintiff testimony identify a Terminix truck as the striking vehicle | Terminix: record lacks sufficient evidence to tie the striking vehicle or driver to Terminix | Denied Terminix's summary judgment motion — factual disputes exist such that a rational trier of fact could find a Terminix employee struck the car |
| Whether summary judgment is appropriate in negligence action | Plaintiffs: disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment | Terminix: no genuine issue of material fact; judgment as a matter of law appropriate | Court: summary judgment inappropriate; must view evidence in the light most favorable to non-moving party and cannot resolve credibility at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. Shellhorn & Hill, Inc., 221 A.2d 506 (Del. 1966) (summary judgment should not be granted if only reasonable inference favors movant)
- Cerberus Int'l, Ltd. v. Apollo Mgmt., L.P., 794 A.2d 1141 (Del. 2002) (court should not weigh evidence or resolve credibility on summary judgment)
- Espinoza v. Zuckerberg, 124 A.3d 47 (Del. Ch. 2015) (summary judgment inappropriate if any material fact could favor non-moving party)
- Brzoska v. Olson, 668 A.2d 1355 (Del. 1995) (standard for viewing facts in favor of non-moving party)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Davis, 80 A.3d 628 (Del. 2013) (summary judgment framework and appellate guidance)