Woody v. Minquadale Liquors
N17C-07-272 ALR
| Del. Super. Ct. | Jun 29, 2017Background
- On Feb. 17, 2014, Larry Woody slipped on ice on a common sidewalk outside Minquadale Liquors and was injured; Liquor Store (owned by Pravin Patel) is defendant in the underlying negligence action.
- Liquor Store filed a third-party complaint against adjacent tenant Sharp Shooter Sports Bar, LLC, alleging Sharp Shooter’s lease required it to clear the sidewalk where the fall occurred.
- The businesses share a common wall, parking lot, and a sidewalk leading to both entrances; leases for both parties contain maintenance/snow-removal provisions but do not define “premises,” “common area,” or “sidewalk.”
- Sharp Shooter moved for summary judgment arguing the record does not show it had responsibility for the sidewalk or that it was negligent.
- Liquor Store and Woody opposed, arguing lease language is ambiguous about sidewalk maintenance and factual issues remain about negligence and causation.
- The Superior Court denied Sharp Shooter’s motion, finding genuine disputes of material fact on duty and negligence preclude summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sharp Shooter owed a duty to clear the sidewalk under its lease | Lease obligates Sharp Shooter to clear sidewalk and maintain demised premises, so duty extends to common sidewalk | Lease language is not shown to cover the specific sidewalk where plaintiff fell; Sharp Shooter not responsible | Lease terms ambiguous; factual dispute exists whether duty extended to that sidewalk — summary judgment denied |
| Whether Liquor Store may pursue third-party claims against Sharp Shooter | Liquor Store asserts comparative negligence / joint-tortfeasor claim against Sharp Shooter | Sharp Shooter contends Liquor Store lacks standing because it is not a third-party beneficiary of Sharp Shooter’s lease | Court allowed Liquor Store to proceed as joint-tortfeasor; third-party beneficiary status need not be decided |
| Whether Sharp Shooter was negligent and proximately caused the injury | Evidence can support a finding Sharp Shooter failed to clear ice and caused the fall | Insufficient record evidence that Sharp Shooter breached a duty or caused the injury | Disputed factual issues on negligence and causation exist — for jury, so summary judgment improper |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment in negligence context | N/A (non-moving parties argue for denial) | Sharp Shooter urges summary judgment because only reasonable inference is it had no duty or breach | Court emphasizes comparative negligence cases usually present jury questions; summary judgment inappropriate here |
Key Cases Cited
- Helm v. 206 Mass. Ave., LLC, 107 A.3d 1074 (Del. 2014) (duty determination is usually a question of law but may be factual when record is insufficient)
- Duphily v. Del. Elec. Coop., Inc., 662 A.2d 821 (Del. 1995) (elements of negligence: duty, breach, proximate cause, injury)
- GMG Capital Invs., LLC v. Athenian Venture Partners I, L.P., 36 A.3d 776 (Del. 2012) (clear contract terms receive their ordinary meaning; ambiguity allows competing reasonable interpretations)
- Salamone v. Gorman, 106 A.3d 354 (Del. 2014) (definition of ambiguity and how reasonable persons interpret contract language)
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Flagg, 789 A.2d 586 (Del. Super. 2001) (summary judgment standards quoted and applied)