Pousson v. D’Andrea

Summary

The Delaware Superior Court considers defendants’ motions for summary judgment and motions in limine in a premises-liability and negligence action arising from a golf-cart accident at a resort. The court denies the motions in limine concerning the plaintiff’s premises-safety expert and holds that three liability waivers are insufficient under Delaware law to release the defendants from their own alleged negligence. The court denies summary judgment on certain negligence claims because genuine factual disputes remain regarding duty and breach.

Holdings

1. Monteith was qualified to testify concerning RV and campground operations, premises safety, recreational-property management, and applicable standards of care. His opinions were relevant, based on an adequate factual foundation, and formed through reliable principles and methods under Delaware Rule of Evidence 702.
2. The water-feature waiver, golf-cart liability waiver, and short-term rental agreement did not clearly and unequivocally release the defendants from claims arising from their own negligence and were therefore insufficient to bar plaintiff’s claims.
3. Summary judgment was denied on Counts III and V because Monteith’s opinions and the evidence concerning defendants’ knowledge of reckless golf-cart operation, failure to enforce rules, and failure to confiscate the carts created genuine issues of material fact concerning duty, breach, and causation.
4. Summary judgment was granted for Sun Communities on Count IV because Delaware does not recognize a common-law or statutory dram-shop cause of action against a tavern or commercial operator for injuries caused by an intoxicated patron.
5. Summary judgment was granted on Counts VI and VII because plaintiff did not produce evidence that D’Andrea was reckless or incompetent at the time the golf cart was entrusted to her, or that defendants knew or had reason to know of such recklessness or incompetence.
6. Summary judgment was denied to the extent Count X alleged that Sun Communities negligently failed to confiscate the golf carts and enforce its own rules and procedures. Summary judgment was granted on the theories based on inadequate staffing and lack of security because those theories were not pleaded with sufficient particularity and lacked necessary expert support.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Mark Monteith was qualified to testify as an RV, campground, premises-safety, and recreational-facilities-management expert under Delaware Rule of Evidence 702.
2. Whether alleged factual misunderstandings, evidentiary choices, and methodology defects in Monteith’s opinions affected admissibility or instead presented matters for cross-examination and credibility assessment.
3. Whether the defendants’ water-feature waiver, golf-cart liability waiver, and short-term rental agreement clearly and unequivocally released the defendants from liability for their own negligence.
4. Whether genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on the negligence claims in Counts III and V.
5. Whether Delaware law barred the negligence claim in Count IV against Sun Communities based on allegedly serving or permitting an intoxicated patron to operate a golf cart.
6. Whether plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to support negligent entrustment claims in Counts VI and VII.
7. Whether summary judgment was proper on the premises-liability claim in Count X, including the theories based on failure to confiscate golf carts and enforce rules and on inadequate staffing or security.

Disposition

other