Case Title: Sherman v. Georgia-Pacific LLC

Citation: 

Docket Number: 98, 2014

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2014-10-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TED SHERMAN,  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 98, 2014 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below: 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Superior Court of the  
§ 
State of Delaware, in and for 
GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC, 
 
§ 
New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
C. A. No. 11C-01-271-ASB 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
Submitted:  October 22, 2014 
Decided:  October 23, 2014 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice, RIDGELY and VALIHURA, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 23rd day of October 2014, upon consideration of the record before us, it 
appears to the Court that Appellant Ted Sherman (“Sherman”) raises two issues on 
appeal.  First, he argues that the Superior Court erred when it denied Sherman’s 
motion at trial to amend his pleadings to include a breach of implied warranty 
claim under Virginia law.  Second, he argues that the Superior Court erred when it 
did not instruct the jury concerning his negligence theory that the Appellee failed 
to exercise ordinary care in the design, manufacture and sale of products, and 
instead, instructed the jury solely on the theory of failure to warn. 
We have carefully reviewed the complicated record below.  We find that 
there is evidence in the record to suggest that the Appellee would have been 
2 
 
prejudiced if Sherman’s requested amendments and instructions had been allowed.  
Accordingly, on the record before us, we conclude that the Superior Court did not 
abuse its discretion in denying Sherman’s proposed amendment and in instructing 
the jury. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice