Laine v. Speedway, LLC

177 A.3d 1227 (Del. 2018) · Supreme Court of the State of Delaware · January 8, 2018 · No. No. 149, 2017

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Speedway, LLC in a premises-liability action arising from Michael Laine’s slip and fall on ice formed by freezing rain at a gasoline station. The court held that Delaware’s continuing storm doctrine remains valid, applies to businesses that remain open during an ongoing storm, and extends to ice caused by freezing rain. The court also held that the doctrine generally suspends a landowner’s duty to warn of icy conditions during a storm in progress.

Court
Supreme Court of the State of Delaware
Writing for the Court
Justice Vaughn; Chief Justice Strine; Justice Valihura; Justice Seitz; Justice Traynor
Jurisdiction
Delaware
Decision date
January 8, 2018
Docket number
No. 149, 2017
Procedural posture
Plaintiff appealed the Superior Court's grant of summary judgment to Speedway in a premises-liability negligence action arising from a slip-and-fall on ice during an ongoing freezing-rain event.
Standard of review
De novo review of the grant or denial of summary judgment, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and determining whether there are no material issues of fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Precedential value
Published Delaware Supreme Court en banc opinion; precedential.
Parties
Michael Laine v. Speedway, LLC
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

premises liabilityduty of carenegligencestandard of reviewappellate procedure

Practice areas

premises liabilitynegligenceappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Delaware should continue to recognize the continuing storm doctrine.
  2. Whether the continuing storm doctrine applies when a business remains open during an ongoing winter storm.
  3. Whether the continuing storm doctrine applies to ice caused by ongoing freezing rain rather than only snow or a severe snowstorm.
  4. Whether Speedway's employees had a duty to warn customers of the ice during the ongoing storm.
  5. Whether summary judgment was properly granted to Speedway under the continuing storm doctrine.

Holdings

  1. Delaware continues to recognize the continuing storm doctrine, under which a landowner ordinarily may wait until a storm ends and a reasonable time thereafter before removing natural accumulations of ice and snow, absent unusual circumstances.
  2. A business does not lose the protection of the continuing storm doctrine merely because it remains open during an ongoing storm.
  3. The continuing storm doctrine applies to a fairly continuous natural accumulation of ice or snow caused by ongoing precipitation, including freezing rain, snow, sleet, or a combination of those conditions; it is not limited to severe snowstorms.
  4. Generally, a property owner has no duty to warn of icy conditions during a storm in progress.
  5. Summary judgment for Speedway was proper because the continuing storm doctrine applied to the undisputed facts of Laine's fall during ongoing freezing rain.

Key quotations

that it is reasonable for a landowner to wait until a storm ends and a reasonable time thereafter before removing natural accumulations of ice and snow created by a storm, in the absence of unusual circumstances. (at 11)
We reject the appellant’s contention that the continuing storm doctrine should not apply to a business which remains open during a storm. (at 12-13)
Generally, there is no duty to warn of icy conditions during a storm in progress. (at 14)
The rule does not depend upon whether that precipitation is in the form of freezing rain, snow, sleet or a combination of all three. (at 14-15)

Factual background

On January 10, 2014, Laine drove a shuttle bus to a Speedway gasoline station in Dover during a light freezing rain. After stopping at a pump, he stepped from the bus, slipped on ice formed when the rain froze upon contact with the station surface, and suffered serious injuries. The freezing rain began sometime between approximately 6:20 and 6:54 a.m. and continued throughout the day; Laine fell at approximately 7:15 a.m., while the storm was ongoing.

Procedural history

Laine sued Speedway for negligence, alleging that Speedway failed to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition, inspect the premises, warn of hazardous conditions, and remove ice near the gasoline pump. The Superior Court granted Speedway summary judgment under Delaware's continuing storm doctrine. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…