Sanders v. Odilia's Express, Inc
N15C-03-076 JRJ
| Del. Super. Ct. | Jun 23, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Douglas Sanders, a professional beekeeper, was hired by his employer to salvage ~400 beehives after a tractor-trailer accident in May 2014 that released the bees.
- Sanders had ~100 prior bee stings from two years of beekeeping and arrived knowing the truck had flipped and bees would be agitated.
- He wore protective clothing (netted hat, long sleeves, gloves), took extra precautions, and worked ~3 hours while being continuously stung.
- As a result of the incident he developed a permanent venom allergy and abandoned beekeeping.
- Plaintiff sued defendants for negligence and for strict liability based on an allegedly ultrahazardous activity; defendants moved for summary judgment asserting primary assumption of the risk.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for all defendants, holding primary assumption of the risk barred Sanders’s claims as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether primary assumption of the risk bars recovery for injuries from bee stings during a salvage operation | Sanders: knowledge of risk alone is insufficient; no express consent or contract relieving defendants of duty; did not expect severe allergic reaction given prior stings | Defendants: Sanders, a professional who knowingly undertook an inherently risky salvage task, manifested consent to assume the risk (circumstantial conduct suffices) | Court: Granted summary judgment for defendants — Sanders voluntarily and expressly assumed the risk by profession, awareness, precautions, and continuing to work despite stings; primary assumption of risk is a complete bar |
Key Cases Cited
- Storm v. NSL Rockland Place LLC, 898 A.2d 874 (Del. 2005) (defines primary assumption of the risk and "express consent" can be inferred)
- Koutoufaris v. Dick, 604 A.2d 390 (Del. 1992) (describes "bargained-for" risk-shifting and scope of express consent)
- Spencer v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP, 930 A.2d 881 (Del. 2007) (premises-liability context distinguishing nonprofessionals from those who assume known risks)
- Helm v. 206 Massachusetts Ave., LLC, 107 A.3d 1074 (Del. 2014) (premises-liability case illustrating limits on assumption-of-risk where no agreed risk-shifting occurred)