177 A.3d 1227
Del.2018Background
- On January 10, 2014, freezing rain began falling at Speedway’s Dover convenience store/gas station; temperature readings were about 32°F.
- Speedway opened at 6:00 a.m. with two employees on duty; an employee slipped outside the store around 7:00 a.m. and an ice-removal company invoice exists for work done that day.
- At about 7:05–7:15 a.m., plaintiff Michael Laine (a shuttle bus driver) stopped at a pump, stepped out, slipped on ice formed by freezing rain, and sustained serious injuries.
- Laine sued Speedway for negligence (failure to inspect, warn, and remove ice).
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for Speedway under the continuing storm (storm-in-progress) doctrine; Laine appealed.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, applying the continuing storm doctrine to freezing rain and rejecting arguments that a business staying open forfeits the defense or that attendants had an independent duty to warn during the storm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Delaware should continue to recognize the continuing storm doctrine | Laine: businesses that remain open during storms should be held to ordinary duty to keep premises safe (modern removal services make continuous removal feasible) | Speedway: doctrine remains valid because active storms make removal impracticable; no evidence doctrine’s rationale is obsolete | Court: continued recognition affirmed — doctrine still appropriate absent evidence it no longer balances risks and public needs |
| Whether the continuing storm doctrine applies when the hazardous accumulation is caused by freezing rain (not just snow) | Laine: doctrine should be limited to severe snow storms like Young | Speedway: doctrine applies to all ongoing precipitation that creates natural accumulations, including freezing rain | Court: doctrine applies to freezing rain; rationale rests on ongoing precipitation, not its specific form |
| Whether a business that stays open must warn customers (e.g., cones/tape) or proactively remove ice during an active storm | Laine: employees had duty to inspect, warn, or close | Speedway: no duty to warn or continuously clear during an ongoing storm; may wait until storm ends and reasonable time thereafter | Court: no general duty to warn of icy conditions during a storm in progress; continuing storm doctrine suspends ordinary warning/clearance duties |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on these facts | Laine: factual disputes (e.g., timing, availability of removal) preclude summary judgment | Speedway: facts show ongoing freezing rain at time of fall; doctrine applies as a matter of law | Court: affirmed summary judgment for Speedway — no material fact dispute on applicability of the continuing storm doctrine to these facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. Saroukos, 185 A.2d 274 (Del. Super. Ct. 1962) (adopting the continuing storm doctrine in Delaware)
- Monroe Park Apts., Corp. v. Bennett, 232 A.2d 105 (Del. 1967) (landowner duty to keep premises safe from natural accumulations)
- Hamm v. Ramunno, 281 A.2d 601 (Del. 1971) (landowner’s duty of reasonable care to invitees)
- Brown v. United Water Del., Inc., 3 A.3d 272 (Del. 2010) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Kraus v. Newton, 558 A.2d 240 (Conn. 1989) (illustrative out-of-state authority recognizing the storm-in-progress defense)