Laws v. Handy
N17C-01-414 ALR
| Del. Super. Ct. | Jul 21, 2017Background
- Ten‑month‑old Charles Laws III died on Jan. 28, 2015 from a fatal Benadryl (diphenhydramine) overdose administered by licensed daycare operator Valorie Handy at Handy’s Little Disciples.
- Plaintiffs (parents/estate) sued the Handys for negligence/wrongful death and sued the Delaware Department of Services for Children, Youth and Their Families, Office of Child Care Licensing ("Licensing Entity") and Supervisor Vivian Murphy (collectively, "State Defendants") for gross and wanton negligence in licensing and supervising Handy after a prior 2001 incident in which an infant suffered severe injuries under Handy’s care.
- State Defendants moved to dismiss asserting sovereign immunity as to the Licensing Entity, qualified immunity under 10 Del. C. § 4001 for the Licensing Supervisor, and the public duty doctrine.
- The court held that sovereign immunity barred the suit against the Licensing Entity because Plaintiffs did not identify an independent legislative waiver of immunity.
- The court denied dismissal of claims against the Licensing Supervisor, concluding Plaintiffs plausibly alleged ministerial acts or gross negligence sufficient to overcome Section 4001 immunity and to avoid resolution under the public duty doctrine at the pleading stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sovereign immunity bars suit against the Licensing Entity | Sovereign immunity is waived or inapplicable because gross negligence liability under the State Tort Claims Act applies | State retains sovereign immunity absent an express legislative waiver; Section 4001 alone does not waive immunity for the Entity | Granted: Licensing Entity dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (sovereign immunity) |
| Whether § 4001 shields the Licensing Supervisor from suit | Plaintiffs allege ministerial acts, bad faith, or gross negligence in licensing/supervision that would defeat § 4001 immunity | Supervisor is entitled to qualified immunity for discretionary acts performed in good faith and without gross/wanton negligence | Denied: Claims against Supervisor survive pleading stage—plausible ministerial/gross negligence claims exist |
| Whether the public duty doctrine bars Plaintiffs' claims against the Supervisor | Alleged facts may show an affirmative undertaking, direct contact, knowledge of harm, and reliance—so doctrine should not bar claims | Doctrine bars tort claims based on discretionary duties owed to the public at large | Denied: Court cannot determine applicability on pleadings; claims may proceed to develop facts |
| Pleading sufficiency (particularity re: gross negligence) | Complaint contains multiple specific allegations regarding licensing and supervision failures | Defendants argue Plaintiffs failed to plead gross negligence with required particularity | Denied: Court finds allegations adequate to give notice and support conceivable proof of gross negligence |
Key Cases Cited
- Sherman v. State, 133 A.3d 971 (Del. 2016) (discusses scope of sovereign immunity and waiver)
- Pauley v. Reinoehl, 848 A.2d 569 (Del. 2004) (sovereign immunity and waiver principles)
- Hecksher v. Fairwinds Baptist Church, Inc., 115 A.3d 1187 (Del. 2015) (defines gross negligence as extreme departure from ordinary care)
- Jardel Co. v. Hughes, 523 A.2d 518 (Del. 1987) (gross negligence compared to criminal negligence standard)
- J.L. v. Barnes, 33 A.3d 902 (Del. 2011) (Section 4001 immunity framework for ministerial/discretionary/bad faith/gross negligence analysis)