Parham v. Todaro
N15C-05-150 ALR
| Del. Super. Ct. | Mar 23, 2017Background
- On June 18, 2013, Zachary Todaro (driver) attempted a U-turn to access a Sunoco station in Newark; as he re-entered S. Main Street his vehicle collided with a UPS truck driven by Anthony Jannuzzio. Susan Todaro is the registered owner; Jannuzzio was acting within the scope of employment with UPS.
- Plaintiffs Maurice Parham and Zachary Brady (passengers) sued for negligence against Zachary Todaro, Susan Todaro, Jannuzzio, and UPS, alleging both drivers caused their injuries.
- Jannuzzio and UPS moved for summary judgment arguing insufficient evidence of Jannuzzio’s negligence or that his conduct proximately caused the collision.
- The Todaros and Plaintiffs opposed summary judgment, arguing genuine factual disputes exist about who caused the crash and could support a jury finding of negligence against Jannuzzio/UPS.
- Key factual disputes: whether Todaro brought his vehicle to a complete stop after the U-turn (Todaro says he stopped; Parham says vehicle was moving), and conflicting testimony about which vehicle struck the other (Todaro/Parham/Brady describe being struck by the UPS truck).
- The court concluded these factual disputes preclude summary judgment and denied Jannuzzio and UPS’s motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jannuzzio’s conduct was negligent and/or a proximate cause of the collision | Evidence (witness testimony, interrogatory answers) indicates UPS truck struck Todaro’s vehicle; a jury could find Jannuzzio negligent | No evidence shows Jannuzzio was negligent or proximately caused the accident; movants entitled to judgment as a matter of law | Denied — genuine issues of material fact exist about negligence and proximate cause |
| Whether Todaro stopped before re-entering S. Main Street (affecting fault) | Todaro may not have stopped (Parham testimony) supporting liability for Todaro | Todaro testified he stopped 1–2 seconds and was stopped when struck | Disputed — credibility/factual conflict for the jury; precludes summary judgment |
| Whether case is appropriate for summary adjudication under Delaware comparative negligence law | Plaintiffs: comparative negligence determinations present factual issues for a jury | Defendants: claim record requires judgment for defendants | Court: comparative negligence usually a jury question; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Burden on summary judgment movant | Plaintiffs: movant must show no genuine issues of material fact; any reasonable inference for non-movant defeats motion | Defendants: argued they met burden showing lack of evidence of negligence/proximate cause | Court: movant did not carry initial burden; conflicts in evidence require denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Sizemore, 405 A.2d 679 (Del. 1979) (moving party bears initial burden on summary judgment)
- Brzoska v. Olson, 668 A.2d 1355 (Del. 1995) (facts must be viewed in favor of non-moving party on summary judgment)
- Pipher v. Parsell, 930 A.2d 890 (Del. 2007) (motor vehicle drivers owe duty of care to passengers)
- Helm v. 206 Mass. Ave., LLC, 107 A.3d 1074 (Del. 2014) (comparative negligence determinations are generally jury questions)
- Cerberus Int’l, Ltd. v. Apollo Mgmt., L.P., 794 A.2d 1141 (Del. 2002) (court should not weigh evidence or resolve factual conflicts at summary judgment)
- Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005) (standard for assessing whether disputes of material fact preclude summary disposition)