Reese v. Triple D. Truss, LLC
K15C-09-030 RBY
| Del. Super. Ct. | Nov 28, 2016Background
- On July 8, 2014, Reese fell from the top of a chicken house while helping construct its roof and alleges an L5 spinal fracture and fractured tail bone.
- Triple D. Truss, LLC either manufactured the roof trusses or also participated in the roof construction; the exact role is unresolved and discovery has not determined it.
- Reese alleges the crane operator moved a truss causing other trusses to fall and knock him from the structure.
- Reese sued Triple D. Truss, L&S Truss Hauling, and Northeast Agri Systems for negligence; a third-party complaint was filed against Jeffrey Walston.
- Triple D moved to dismiss under Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim; the motion was decided at an early stage of litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint states a claim against Triple D. under negligence/vicarious liability | Reese alleges Triple D. provided trusses, a crane, and a crane operator whose actions caused the injury | Triple D. says it was merely a manufacturer and no manufacturing defect is alleged, so no basis for liability | Denied — complaint is reasonably conceivable to state a claim; factual issues (employment and scope) require discovery |
| Whether the crane operator owed duties to Reese | Reese contends the operator had duty to maintain lookout and exercise care to protect nearby workers | Implicitly disputes employer liability absent evidence operator was employed by Triple D. | Court: Crane operator may owe duty based on Hitchens; allegations could show breach and causation |
| Whether Triple D. may be vicariously liable for the crane operator | Reese alleges Triple D. provided the crane operator; thus Triple D. could be employer | Triple D. denies such role (or asserts only manufacturer role) | Court: It is conceivable Triple D. employed the operator; dismissal premature pending discovery |
| Whether the operator's conduct was within the scope of employment (respondeat superior) | Reese alleges operator acted while performing work that could be motivated by employer's business needs | Triple D. disputes nexus and factual predicate for respondeat superior | Court: At this stage, operator’s actions could fall within scope; factual development required |
Key Cases Cited
- Spence v. Funk, 396 A.2d 967 (Del. 1978) (broad standard for sufficiency on motions to dismiss)
- Fisher v. Townsends, Inc., 695 A.2d 53 (Del. 1997) (vicarious liability principles)
- Hudson v. Old Guard Ins. Co., 3 A.3d 246 (Del. 2010) (elements of negligence)
- Hitchens v. Cannon & Cannon, Inc., 588 A.2d 1142 (Del. 1991) (crane operator duty to maintain lookout and exercise care)
- Culver v. Bennett, 588 A.2d 1094 (Del. 1991) (but‑for causation rule)
- Wilson v. Joma, Inc., 537 A.2d 187 (Del. 1988) (test for scope of employment under respondeat superior)