Simpson v. Colonial Parking, Inc.

36 A.3d 333 (Del. 2012) · Supreme Court of Delaware · February 13, 2012

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Colonial Parking in a personal injury action arising from a bicyclist’s use of the company’s parking lot. The court held that, for commercial property owners and occupiers, Delaware common law imposes the same duty toward trespassers and licensees: to refrain from willful and wanton conduct, rather than applying the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 342 licensee standard.

Court
Supreme Court of Delaware
Writing for the Court
Jacobs, Justice; Berger; Jacobs; Steele
Jurisdiction
Delaware
Decision date
February 13, 2012
Procedural posture
Appeal from the Superior Court's grant of summary judgment for Colonial Parking in a personal-injury premises-liability action.
Standard of review
Summary judgment is reviewed de novo to determine whether the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Robert E. Simpson v. Colonial Parking, Inc.
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

premises liabilitypersonal injurysummary judgmentstandard of reviewappellate procedure

Practice areas

tortspremises liabilityappellate procedurecivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Superior Court applied the correct premises-liability standard in determining Colonial Parking's duty to Simpson.
  2. Whether Delaware common law imposes different premises-liability standards on commercial property owners depending on whether the entrant is classified as a trespasser or a licensee.

Holdings

  1. Under Delaware common law, commercial property owners and occupiers owe both trespassers and licensees only the duty to refrain from willful and wanton conduct; the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 342 licensee-liability rule is not Delaware's common-law standard.
  2. Summary judgment for Colonial Parking was proper because, under the applicable willful-and-wanton standard, Simpson did not allege or prove conduct sufficient to establish liability.

Key quotations

Because commercial property owners/occupiers are held to the same common law standard whether or not the claimant is a licensee or a trespasser — namely, to refrain from willful and wanton conduct — we affirm. (36 A.3d at 333)
Rather, the Delaware common law rule is that property owners/possessors must refrain from willful and wanton conduct toward trespassers and licensees alike. (36 A.3d at 336)

Factual background

On July 9, 2009, Simpson rode his bicycle through an ungated entrance into Colonial Parking's commercial parking lot in Wilmington, Delaware, using the lot as a shortcut. His bicycle struck a large pothole marked by a traffic cone that he noticed only after the crash. Simpson claimed that Colonial negligently failed to maintain safe premises and owed him the duty applicable to a licensee.

Procedural history

Simpson sued Colonial Parking after his bicycle struck a pothole in Colonial's parking lot. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Superior Court held that Simpson was a trespasser rather than a licensee and that Colonial's only duty was to refrain from willful and wanton conduct. The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed, although it clarified that the same common-law standard applies to both trespassers and licensees of commercial property.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…