IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

THE ESTATE OF ERIC 

GIVENS, SHERRIE 

GIVENS as Administratrix of 

The Estate of Eric Givens,

MARK GIVENS and 

SHERRIE GIVENS, as 

Parents of Eric Givens, and 

SHERRIE GIVENS and 

SAMANTHA STRANICK as 

Next Friends and CoGuardians Ad Litem for 

Khloe Givens, a Minor,

 Plaintiffs, 

 v.

DELAWARE ELECTRIC 

COOPERATIVE INC.,

 

 Defendant. 

)

) 

) 

) C.A. No. N12C-10-041 CLS

) 

)

) 

) 

)

)

)

) 

)

)

)

) 

)

) 

)

)

)

Date Submitted: May 14, 2014

Date Decided: August 20, 2014

On Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs’ 

Claim for Mental Anguish. DENIED.

ORDER

Bruce C. Herron, Esq. Losco & Marconi, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware 

19802. Attorney for Defendant Delaware Electric Cooperative Inc. 

James S. Green, Sr. Esq. and Jared T. Green, Esq. Seitz, Van Ogtrop & 

Green, P.A. Wilmington, Delaware 19899. Attorneys for Plaintiffs. 

Scott, J. 
2

Introduction

This is a wrongful death action brought by the mother of the decedent, 

Eric Givens (“Mr. Givens”), as administratrix of the Estate of Eric Givens, 

Mr. Givens’ father, and Samantha Stranick (“Ms. Stranick”), the mother of 

Mr. Givens’ only child, Khloe Givens (“Khloe”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). 

Khloe is a minor and has brought this action through her grandmother and 

mother as Next Friends and Co-Guardians Ad Litem. Defendant Delaware 

Electric Cooperative, Inc. (“Defendant”) has moved for partial summary 

judgment on Plaintiffs’ claim that Khloe is entitled to damages for mental 

anguish as a result of her father’s death. The Court has reviewed the parties’ 

submissions. For the following reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs’ Claim for Mental Anguish is DENIED. 

Background1

While Mr. Givens was cutting grass in the course and scope of his 

employment on October 5, 2011, the tractor and mower that he was 

operating became caught by a guy wire supporting a utility pole owned and 

operated by Defendant. When Mr. Givens attempted to remove the wire, it 

detached from its anchor, made contact with a live electrical wire, 

electrocuted him and caused his death. On October 3, 2012, Plaintiffs filed 

 1 The Court has presented the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs as the nonmoving 

parties. 
3

this against Defendant asserting claims of simple negligence and negligence 

per se. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that Khloe suffered mental 

anguish as result of her father’s death. 

Parties’ Contentions

Defendant filed this motion for partial summary judgment as to 

Khloe’s mental anguish based upon two grounds. First, Defendant argues 

that Delaware decisional law requires that Plaintiffs show that Khloe 

suffered a physical injury in order to recover on a claim for mental anguish. 

Second, Defendant argues that any award for Khloe’s mental anguish would 

be speculative since Khloe was only about six months old at the time of her 

father’s death and was not old enough to have experienced a grieving 

process. Defendant supports its second argument with deposition testimony 

from both Khloe’s grandmother and mother in which they stated that they 

were not aware of any developmental or emotional issues that Khloe may 

have had.

2

Plaintiffs do not assert that Khloe has suffered physical injury. 

Instead, they point to contrary Delaware case law to argue that physical 

injury is not a prerequisite for a claim for mental anguish. In addition, 

Plaintiffs argue that Khloe’s age at the time of her father’s death has no 

bearing on her recovery for mental anguish since she is well aware who her 

 2 Def. Mot., Ex. B., Sherrie Givens Dep. at 8:18-21; Ex. C., Stranick Dep. at 8:17-24. 
4

father is3 and will experience the pain of the loss of her father for the rest of 

her life. 

Standard of Review

“Generally speaking, issues of negligence are not susceptible of 

summary adjudication.”4

 Nevertheless, the Court may grant summary 

judgment if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and 

admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no 

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to 

summary judgment as a matter of law.”5

 The moving party bears the initial 

burden of showing that no material issues of fact are present.6

 Once such a 

showing is made, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to demonstrate 

that there are material issues of fact in dispute.7 In considering a motion for 

summary judgment, the Court must view the record in a light most favorable 

to the non-moving party.8

 

Discussion

The first issue presented by Defendant’s motion is whether the minor 

child of a decedent may recover damages for mental anguish in a wrongful 

 3 See Pl. Resp. to Def. Mot., Ex. A, Stranick Dep. at 11:10-14. 

4 Ebersole v. Lowengrub, 180 A.2d 467, 469 (1962).

5 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56(c); Burkhart v. Davies, 602 A.2d 56, 59 (Del. 1991).

6 Moore v. Sizemore, 405 A.2d 679, 680 (Del. 1979).

7 Id. at 681.

8 Burkhart, 602 A.2d at 59.
5

death action without a showing of physical injury. Under Delaware’s 

Wrongful Death Statute,

9 a judge or jury may award damages for “[m]ental 

anguish resulting from such death to the surviving spouse and next-of-kin of 

such deceased person.”10 While the Statute permits such claims, it does not 

define “mental anguish” nor set forth the elements necessary to prevail on 

such a claim.

11 

The Delaware Supreme Court considered whether physical injury was 

necessary for a claim for mental anguish in Mergenthaler v. Asbestos 

Corporation of America,

12 an action not involving wrongful death. In that 

case, the spouses of workers who had been exposed to asbestos claimed to 

have suffered mental anguish due to the fear of developing cancer while 

laundering their spouses’ alleged asbestos-contaminated clothing.13 In 

finding that the plaintiffs-spouses could not cover for mental anguish, the 

Court stated: 

In any claim for mental anguish, whether it arises from witnessing the 

ailments of another or from the claimant's own apprehension, an 

essential element of the claim is that the claimant have a present 

physical injury. 14 Here, plaintiffs-spouses concede that they have 

 9 10 Del. C. § 3724. 

10 § 3724(d)(5).

11 § 3724; Spencer v. Goodill, 2009 WL 3823217, at *3 (Del. Super. Nov. 13, 2009). 12 480 A.2d 647 (Del. 1984).

13 Id. at 649. 

14 Id. at 651 (citing Robb v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Del.Supr., 210 A.2d 709 

(1965); Cosgrove v. Beymer, D.Del., 244 F.Supp. 824 (1965); Mancino v. Webb,

Del.Super., 274 A.2d 711 (1971); Amader v. Johns-Manville Corp., E.D.Pa., 514 F.Supp. 

1031 (1981); Tysenn v. Johns-Manville Corp., E.D.Pa., 517 F.Supp. 1290 (1981)).
6

suffered no physical injury due to wrongful asbestos exposure. 

Therefore, that concession is dispositive of this case.15

Since Mergenthaler, this Court has encountered some difficulty in 

determining whether evidence of physical injury is required to succeed on a 

claim for mental anguish in wrongful death actions.16 In one wrongful death 

suit, Okie v. Owens,17 the Court examined the reasonableness of a jury 

award for mental anguish to the parents of an adult child lost in an 

automobile accident. The Court found that the award was unreasonably low, 

despite the fact that neither parent had suffered any physical injury as a 

result of their loss.18 In Roberts v. Delmarva Power & Lighting Co., another 

wrongful death action, the Court acknowledged that it did not require a 

showing of physical injury to reach its conclusion in Okie.

19 Nevertheless, 

the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant and, based on 

a straightforward application of the Supreme Court’s holding in 

Mergenthaler, found that claims for mental anguish in wrongful death 

actions were barred absent a showing of physical injury.20 

 15 Id. (citing Tysenn, 517 F.Supp. 1290, and Cathcart v. Johns-Manville Corporation, Pa.Super., 

471 A.2d 493, 507-510 (1984)). 16 Spencer, 2009 WL 3823217; Roberts v. Delmarva Power & Light Co., 2 A.3d 131, 142-43 

(Del. Super. 2009); Okie v. Owens, 1985 WL 189292 (Del. Super. Oct. 16, 1985). 

17 Okie, 1985 WL 189292 (Del. Super.) 

18 Id. at *6; While the Court in Okie did permit an award for mental anguish in the absence of 

physical injury, the Court notes that it also stated that it was not reviewing the jury’s application 

of substantive law to the facts of the case. Id. at *4. In addition, the Court did not cite to 

Mergenthaler. 

19 Roberts, 2 A.3d at 143.

20 Id. 
7

In Spencer v. Goodill,

21 the Court was unwilling to interpret the 

language from Mergenthaler, “any claim for mental anguish,” as broadly as 

it did in Roberts.

22 The Court found that, since Mergenthaler was not a 

wrongful death suit, the Supreme Court could not have intended for its 

holding to apply in wrongful death suits.23 This contrary conclusion was 

reached after the Court performed a detailed analysis of the Wrongful Death 

Statute’s history and plain language, Delaware case law permitting mental 

anguish claims without evidence of physical injury, and Pattern Civil Jury 

Instruction § 22.8 (“Damages Recoverable in a Wrongful Death Claim”).24 

In reviewing the statutory history, the Court recognized that the current 

wrongful death statute “allowed damages for ‘mental anguish’ to 

compensate the ‘real injury caused by the death of a [loved one]: the 

emotional pain of the loss.’”25 As for the plain language of the Statute, the 

Court observed that “[n]either the dictionary definition of ‘mental anguish’ 

nor the dictionary definition of ‘emotional distress’ requires ‘physical injury’ 

as a prerequisite to recovery.”26 The Court considered the limited class of 

close family members permitted to pursue mental anguish claims under the 

 21 2009 WL 3823217. 

22 Id. at *6. 

23 Id. 

24 Id. at *3. The holding in Spencer was followed by the District Court of Delaware in Barkes v. 

First Corr. Med., 2010 WL 883739 (D. Del. Mar. 9, 2010).

25 Id. (quoting John E. Babiarz, Jr., A New Wrongful Death Act for Delaware, Del. Lawyer 20 

(Fall 1982)). 

26 Id. at *4. 
8

Statute as the General Assembly’s lack of intent to limit recovery to only 

those plaintiffs who suffered physical injury.27 The Court noted that 

“Superior Court Pattern Civil Jury Instruction § 22.8 defines ‘mental 

anguish’ as ‘encompass[ing] the grieving process associated with the loss of 

a loved one[;]’” and that the “instruction does not specifically provide that 

physical injury is required.”28

The Court finds it persuasive that Mergenthaler did not involve a 

claim for wrongful death and that its holding was not based on cases 

involving claims for wrongful death. 29 Based upon these distinctions and 

the thorough analysis set forth in Spencer, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are 

not required to show that Khloe suffered physical injury to prevail on a 

claim for mental anguish in this wrongful death action. Thus, summary 

judgment is not appropriate on this ground. 

 27 Id. 

28 Id.

29 Robb v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Del.Supr., 210 A.2d 709 (1965)(plaintiff alleged 

mental anguish after her automobile was struck by a train, but she escaped); Cosgrove v. Beymer,

D.Del., 244 F.Supp. 824 (1965)(Plaintiff-daughter alleged mental anguish after seeing 

defendant’s car strike her father, who survived); Mancino v. Webb, Del.Super., 274 A.2d 711 

(1971)(parents sought to recover damages for mental anguish after minor-daughter was willfully 

assaulted by another child); Amader v. Johns-Manville Corp., E.D.Pa., 514 F.Supp. 1031 

(1981)(Husband and wife sought recovery for emotional distress and anguish based on husband’s 

development of asbestosis); Tysenn v. Johns-Manville Corp., E.D.Pa., 517 F.Supp. 1290 (1981)

(wife alleged mental anguish due to fear of contracting asbestos-related disease after her husband 

was exposed to asbestos); Cathcart v. Johns-Manville Corporation, Pa.Super., 471 A.2d 493, 

507-510 (1984)(wife alleged negligent infliction of emotional distress based on her exposure to 

asbestos particles in husband’s clothing). 
9

Defendant’s argument that an award for Khloe’s mental anguish 

would be speculative based on her age at the time of her father’s death is 

unavailing. The jury instruction defining “mental anguish” permits the jury 

to “consider that the grieving process, accompanied by its physical and 

emotional upheaval, will be experienced differently by different people, both 

in its intensity and in its duration.”30 It further states that “[t]here is no fixed 

standard or measurement” and that the jury “must determine a fair and 

adequate award through the exercise of [its] judgment and experience after 

considering all the facts and circumstances presented to [it] during the 

trial....”31 Following this language, the jury will be able to measure whether 

Khloe is entitled to damages for mental anguish while taking into 

consideration all of the facts and circumstances, which may include her age. 

As for Defendant’s argument that there is no evidence of Khloe’s mental 

anguish, Khloe’s grandmother and mother may testify regarding those 

facts.32

 30 Del. P.J.I Civ. § 22.8 (2000).

31 Id. 

32 See Price v. Blood Bank of Delaware, Inc., 790 A.2d 1203, 1213-14 (Del. 2002)(“The trial 

judge correctly rejected [the defendant’s] motion on the ground that other siblings confirmed the 

close relationship among family members”). 
10

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment as to Plaintiffs’ Claim for Mental Anguish is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/Calvin L. Scott 

Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr.