Price v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the denial of Patricia Price's motion to amend her household asbestos-exposure complaint against DuPont. The court held that the alleged conduct constituted nonfeasance rather than misfeasance and that, absent a special relationship between Price and DuPont, DuPont owed her no duty of care. A dissent argued that DuPont's release of asbestos was affirmative conduct constituting misfeasance and that the alleged harm was foreseeable.

Holdings

1. Leave to amend was properly denied because the proposed amended complaint would fail to state a legally cognizable negligence claim and therefore was futile.
2. The conduct alleged by Patricia Price constituted nonfeasance, not misfeasance. Legal relabeling of the same underlying omissions could not transform nonfeasance into affirmative misconduct.
3. DuPont owed Patricia Price no duty of care because the alleged nonfeasance was not accompanied by a legally significant special relationship between Patricia Price and DuPont.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Superior Court properly denied leave to amend because the proposed amended complaint would be futile under Rule 12(b)(6).
2. Whether the alleged conduct underlying Patricia Price's take-home asbestos claim constituted misfeasance or nonfeasance.
3. Whether DuPont owed Patricia Price a duty of care despite the absence of a legally significant special relationship.

Disposition

affirmed