Title: Gunzl v. R & K Motors & Machine Shop

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ANTHONY W. GUNZL, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
R & K MOTORS & MACHINE 
SHOP, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 552, 2003 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 02C-09-035 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 15, 2004 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: May 4, 2004 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This fourth day of May 2004, upon consideration of the opening brief 
and the appellee’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to affirm, it appears 
to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The plaintiff below, Anthony Gunzl, filed this appeal from a 
Superior Court jury’s verdict in defendant’s favor on Gunzl’s claim for 
negligence.  Gunzl’s complaint sought damages in excess of $100,000 for 
defendant R&K Motors & Machine Shop’s negligent repair of a motor for a 
backhoe.  R&K has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal or, in the alternative, 
affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.  We find it manifest on the face of 
 
2
Gunzl’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  Accordingly, we 
affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
(2) 
R&K has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that 
Gunzl’s opening brief fails to conform to the briefing requirements of 
Supreme Court Rule 14.  Moreover, R&K asserts that, if an attorney had filed 
the opening brief, it would be stricken as unprofessional because it unfairly 
accuses R&K and its attorney of committing perjury.  We agree with R&K’s 
position that Gunzl’s opening brief fails to conform to the requirements of 
Rule 14 and would be stricken as improper if filed by an attorney.  
Nonetheless, the Court affords self-represented litigants a degree of leniency 
in filing documents on appeal.1  After reviewing Gunzl’s opening brief, we 
find that it adequately sets forth substantive arguments to permit this Court to 
conduct a meaningful review of the merits of his claims on appeal.  
Accordingly, we deny R&K’s motion to dismiss. 
(3) 
In his opening brief, Gunzl raises three discernible issues.  First, 
he challenges the Superior Court’s pretrial rulings on discovery matters.  
Second, Gunzl appears to argue that the defendant’s offer of judgment and 
alleged inconsistencies in the evidence establish that the jury’s verdict was 
                                                 
1 Yancy v. National Trust Co., 1998 WL 309819 (Del. May 19, 1998). 
 
3
against the weight of the evidence.  Third, Gunzl alleges that the defendant’s 
witness and defendant’s counsel committed perjury. 
(4) 
After careful consideration of the parties’ respective positions 
and the record below, we find it manifest on the face of Gunzl’s opening brief 
that the judgment of the Superior Court must be affirmed.  The Superior 
Court’s pretrial discovery rulings were matters of judicial discretion and 
clearly there was no abuse of discretion in this case.  Moreover, it is the jury’s 
duty to weigh the evidence presented and to resolve any conflicts to 
determine if the plaintiff has met his burden of proof.2  The evidence in this 
case clearly was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.3   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
2 See Tyre v. State, 412 A.2d  326, 330 (Del. 1980). 
3 See Supr. Ct. R. 25(a)(ii).