Case Title: Evans v. Sgt. Thomas Lee

Citation: 

Docket Number: 665, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2010-06-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
AUGUSTUS HEBREW EVANS, 
JR.,   
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
SGT. THOMAS LEE,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 665, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  C.A. No. 07C-03-009  
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 30, 2010 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: June 1, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 1st day of June 2010, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief and the appellees’ motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it 
appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The plaintiff-appellant, Augustus Hebrew Evans, Jr., filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s October 21, 2009 order granting the motion for 
summary judgment of the defendant-appellee, Sergeant Thomas Lee.  Sergeant Lee 
has moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is 
 
2 
manifest on the face of the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We 
agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
 The record reflects that, on July 14, 2006, Sergeant Lee, while on 
patrol, observed Evans’ father, Augustus Hebrew Evans, Sr., in the area of Third 
and North Streets in Seaford, Delaware.  He appeared to be intoxicated.  Evans’ 
father was a familiar figure to the Seaford police.  Typically, when a member of 
the Seaford police department saw Evans’ father on the street appearing 
intoxicated, he would give Evans’ father a ride back to his residence at the Virginia 
Crest Apartments.  On that day, Sergeant Lee picked up Evans’ father and dropped 
him off at the Virginia Crest Apartments.  He observed Evans’ father walk up to 
the front door and enter the apartment building before he pulled away.  However, 
Sergeant Lee was unaware that Evans’ father had temporarily been relocated to a 
motel due to flooding in his apartment.  Later that day, walking in the opposite 
direction from his motel, Evans’ father was struck by an automobile and 
subsequently died of his injuries.  Evans filed suit in the Superior Court seeking 
damages as a result of his father’s death.2   
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Evans argues that the question of liability on the part of 
Sergeant Lee is a question of fact for determination by the jury and that, therefore, 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
2 Evans had standing to bring the lawsuit under Delaware’s Wrongful Death statute, Del. Code 
Ann. tit. 10, §3724. 
 
3 
the Superior Court erred when it granted Sergeant Lee’s motion for summary 
judgment. 
 
(4) 
We review the Superior Court’s grant of a motion for summary 
judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the Superior Court.3  As such, we 
must determine whether the record shows that there is no genuine issue of material 
fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.4  Under the 
County and Municipal Tort Claims Act,5 a municipal employee is personally 
subject to civil liability only where he or she has caused “property damage, bodily 
injury or death” while acting outside “the scope of [his or her] employment” or 
with “wanton negligence or willful and malicious intent.”6   
 
(5) 
Our review of the briefs and the record leads us to conclude that 
summary judgment was properly granted in this case.7  We agree with the Superior 
Court that appellant Evans has failed to offer any support for a finding by a jury 
that Sergeant Lee’s conduct was either outside the scope of his employment or was 
wanton, willful or malicious.  Therefore, the judgment of the Superior Court must 
be affirmed. 
                                                 
3 Berns v. Doan, 961 A.2d 506, 510 (Del. 2008). 
4 Moore v. Sizemore, 405 A.2d 679, 680 (Del. 1979). 
5 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, §4010 et seq. 
6 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, §4011(c). 
7 We note that the Superior Court afforded Evans, who was incarcerated and acting pro se, ample 
opportunity to conduct pretrial discovery regarding his claims. 
 
4 
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because it is controlled by settled Delaware law and, to the extent 
that judicial discretion is implicated, there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice