Case Title: Jacques v. LaCross Homes of Delaware, Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 388, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2010-04-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CHERIE JACQUES, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
 
§   No. 388, 2009 
 
 
Appellant,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
        v. 
 
 
 
 
§   Court Below—Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   of the State of Delaware, 
LaCROSS HOMES OF  
 
§   in and for New Castle County 
DELAWARE, INC., 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   C.A. No. 08C-03-031  
 
 
Defendant Below-  
§ 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 5, 2010 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
April 21, 2010 
 
Before HOLLAND, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 21st day of April 2010, upon consideration of appellant’s opening 
brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Cherie Jacques, filed this appeal from a Superior 
Court jury’s verdict in favor of the appellee, LaCross Homes of Delaware, 
Inc. (“LaCross”), following a two-day trial.  LaCross has filed a motion to 
affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of 
Jacques’ opening brief that her appeal is without merit.  We agree and 
affirm. 
 
2
(2) 
The record reflects that Jacques, through counsel, filed a 
complaint in the Superior Court against LaCross for personal injuries she 
allegedly sustained after she tripped and fell on a step while exiting a model 
home owned by LaCross.  Jacques alleged that LaCross was negligent in its 
construction and/or maintenance of the step and also was negligent in its 
failure to warn that the step created a hazardous condition.  Following a two-
day trial, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of LaCross.  Thereafter, 
Jacques filed this appeal pro se.  
(3) 
Jacques appears to raise two issues in her opening brief on 
appeal.  First, she seems to argue that the jury’s verdict was against the 
weight of the evidence.  Second, she contends that it was improper for the 
jury to consider evidence relating to disabilities that she suffered from prior 
to her fall on LaCross’ property.  
(4) 
With respect to the first issue, Jacques appears to argue that the 
jury’s verdict was unjust because her doctors can prove that she has suffered 
injuries that will “stay with [her] for life.”  Jacques’ argument fails to 
recognize, however, that jury concluded that LaCross was not negligent.  
Accordingly, the jury never reached the issue of Jacques’ damages.  Jacques 
does not raise any challenge on appeal to the jury’s unanimous verdict on the 
issue of liability.  Moreover, she has not provided any transcripts from the 
 
3
trial in order for the Court to conduct an independent review of the jury’s 
findings to ensure those findings were supported by the evidence.1    
(5) 
Similarly, without the trial transcript, the Court has no adequate 
basis to review whether the Superior Court abused its discretion in admitting 
Jacques’ prior injuries into evidence.2  As the appellant, it was incumbent 
upon Jacques to provide the Court with “such portions of the trial transcript 
as are necessary to give this Court a fair and accurate account of the context 
in which the claim of error occurred.”3  Without the transcript, the Court has 
no basis to review the substance of Jacques’ claim of error. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Justice 
                                                 
1  Del. Const. art. IV, §11(1)(a);  Storey v. Camper, 401 A.2d 458, 465 (Del. 1979). 
2 Lynch v. McCarron, 1997 WL 33110 (Del. Jan. 13, 1997). 
3 Tricoche v. State, 525 A.2d 151, 154 (Del. 1987).