Prince v. Ferritto, LLC, K18C-02-005 JJC

Plaintiff Deedra Prince moved (pretrial) to amend her complaint to add a negligence per se claim against Ferritto, LLC and Synoski Real Estate Management, LLC based on Kent County Code § 143-13(J) (maintenance of stairs/porches).
Trial was scheduled to begin Nov. 12, 2019; the amendment was first raised in the parties’ June 2019 pretrial stipulation (≈4 months before trial).
Ferritto opposed, asserting unfair prejudice from lack of discovery on the new claim and that the County Code provision is not a proper basis for negligence per se.
The court applied Sup. Ct. Civ. R. 15(a) (liberal leave to amend) and precedent on lateness and prejudice, finding the amendment would not unfairly prejudice Ferritto because the facts and defenses overlap with the existing negligence claim.
The court held Kent County Code § 143-13(J) satisfies negligence-per-se requirements (enacted for safety, protects the plaintiff’s class, and is sufficiently specific) and took judicial notice that the County Code applies to the unincorporated premises.
The motion to amend was granted; the court reserved ruling on whether the tenant-plaintiff could be comparatively negligent per se and required further evidence/argument at trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Should leave to amend be granted to add negligence per se?	Amendment should be freely allowed; raised in pretrial stipulation months before trial.	Prejudice from no discovery on the new statutory claim.	Granted; no unfair prejudice because facts/defenses overlap and amendment was timely raised.
Does Kent County Code § 143-13(J) permit negligence per se?	Section was enacted for public safety, sets maintenance standard for porches/stairs.	Provision is not a sufficiently specific standard for negligence per se.	Held yes; statute enacted for safety, protects plaintiff’s class, and is sufficiently specific.
Is the provision specific enough to create a standard of conduct?	Section identifies covered structures and requires they be "capable of supporting the loads" and maintained in sound repair.	Argues general language is insufficient.	Court: language is specific; comparable specificity to statutes previously found adequate.
Does the County Code apply to the premises?	Plaintiff proffered the location is in unincorporated Kent County.	Defendant did not dispute applicability.	Court took judicial notice the County Code applies; amendment allowed.

Gulko v. General Motors Corp., 710 A.2d 213 (Del. Super. 1997) (Rule 15 amendments should be liberally granted absent unfair prejudice)
Dunfee v. Blue Rock Van & Storage, Inc., 266 A.2d 187 (Del. Super. 1970) (liberal amendment standard)
Itek Corp. v. Chicago Aerial Indus., Inc., 257 A.2d 232 (Del. Super. 1969) (lateness alone does not bar amendment if no prejudice)
Wright v. Moore, 931 A.2d 405 (Del. 2007) (violation of a safety statute can constitute negligence per se)
Schwartzman v. Weiner, 319 A.2d 48 (Del. Super. 1974) (municipal code violations establishing minimum housing/maintenance standards can support negligence per se)