Newcomer v. Burkholder, N14C-05-151 AML

Background

Plaintiff Mollie Newcomer sued after a collision in which third-party plaintiff Carole Burkholder alleged her 2010 Toyota Sienna unexpectedly accelerated while her foot was on the brake, causing the crash and Newcomer’s injuries.
Burkholder filed third-party claims against the dealer (Newark Toyota World) and manufacturer (Toyota Motor entities) for negligence and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, asserting a vehicle defect caused the accident.
Burkholder disposed of the vehicle after the accident and before pursuing full discovery from Toyota.
The court set an initial expert-disclosure deadline; later allowed limited dealer discovery and required Burkholder to identify an expert within 30 days after certain production or lose further discovery from Toyota.
Burkholder did not timely disclose an expert, later conceded she could not obtain an expert opinion definitively tying a defect to the vehicle at the time of the accident, and Toyota moved for summary judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether expert testimony is required to prove the alleged vehicle defect and proximate causation	Burkholder argued expert unnecessary because circumstantial evidence (her testimony of sudden acceleration, a prior similar event, a class-action notice including her vehicle, and Toyota documents about inspection protocols) negates other reasonable causes	Toyota argued the defect and causation involve technical, expert issues and that without expert proof Burkholder cannot establish defect or causation	Court held expert testimony is required: unintended acceleration is not within common lay knowledge and Burkholder’s circumstantial evidence does not eliminate other reasonable causes (e.g., driver error)
Whether Burkholder’s failure to disclose an expert (per court’s Discovery Order) bars her claims	Burkholder sought more discovery and argued she needed discovery to decide if an expert was necessary or available	Toyota argued Burkholder missed the Discovery Order deadline and the court precluded further discovery absent expert retention	Court held Burkholder missed the deadline and conceded she could not obtain a definitive expert opinion; summary judgment appropriate
Whether additional discovery should be permitted before ruling on summary judgment	Burkholder argued additional discovery might reveal facts negating other causes and supporting a defect theory	Toyota relied on the court’s prior order limiting further Toyota discovery until an expert was retained and on prejudice from late discovery	Court denied additional discovery: Burkholder failed to file required Rule 56(f) affidavit and was bound by the prior Discovery Order limiting further discovery absent an expert
Whether summary judgment should be granted on alternate grounds (failure to preserve vehicle)	Burkholder did not meaningfully dispute at decision stage	Toyota argued loss of the vehicle prevented meaningful inspection and expert analysis	Court did not need to decide alternate grounds after ruling on lack of expert testimony but noted it need not reach these alternate arguments

Key Cases Cited

Reybold Grp., Inc. v. Chemprobe Techs., Inc., 721 A.2d 1267 (Del. 1998) (expert testimony ordinarily required to prove a product defect; required when issue is within experts' knowledge only, and circumstantial evidence must negate other reasonable causes to obviate experts)
Brzoska v. Olson, 668 A.2d 1355 (Del. 1995) (summary judgment standards and view of evidence in favor of nonmoving party)
Hudson v. Old Guard Ins. Co., 3 A.3d 246 (Del. 2010) (elements required to prove negligence)