1

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

PATRICK BLACK,

 Plaintiff,

 

v.

CHROMASCAPE, INC., a foreign 

corporation, d/b/a AMERICMULCH,

 Defendant. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

C.A. No. S13C-04-018 RFS

ORDER

Upon Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Punitive Damages

Denied

AND NOW TO WIT, this 9th day of August, 2016, upon consideration of Defendant’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment on Punitive Damages, IT APPEARS THAT:

1. This case arises out of Plaintiff, Patrick Black’s (“Plaintiff”), allegations against 

Defendant, Chromascape, Inc., a foreign corporation, d/b/a Amerimulch (“Defendant”), for 

negligence and/or recklessness in failing to adequately design, manufacture, or inspect the Mega 

Mite mulch-dyeing machine it sold to Plaintiff’s employer. Defendant moved for summary 

judgment on Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages on February 15, 2016. 

2. A motion for summary judgment pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 56 will be 

granted when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is 

entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”1 If the movant is able to show “that the undisputed 

facts support [its] claims or defenses, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to demonstrate 

 

1

Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56(c). 
2

that material facts remain in dispute for resolution by the ultimate fact-finder.”2 While the Court 

is required to view the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, “the opponent 

cannot create a genuine issue of material fact through bare assertions or conclusory allegations.”3 

“If the record indicates that a material fact is disputed, or if further inquiry into the facts is 

necessary to clarify the application of the law, summary judgment will not be granted.”4

3. The purpose of punitive damages is two-fold: (1) to punish wrongdoers and (2) to 

deter others from engaging in similar conduct in the future.5 Punitive damages are recoverable 

“in situations where the defendant’s conduct, though unintentional, has been particularly 

reprehensible, i.e. reckless, or motivated by malice or fraud,”6or where the defendant’s conduct 

“exhibits a wanton or willful disregard for the rights of the plaintiff.”7 A defendant’s conduct is 

willful or wanton when it reflects a “conscious indifference” or an “I don’t care attitude.”8 

Determining whether a defendant’s conduct justifies an award of punitive damages is typically a 

question for the jury to decide.9 However, “[w]hen the Court construes the facts most favorably 

for the plaintiffs and the evidence permits no reasonable inference a defendant’s conduct is 

sufficiently outrageous to warrant imposition of punitive damages, summary judgment on 

punitive damages is appropriate.”10

 

2

Image Hair Solutions Med. Ctr. v. Fox Television Stations, 2016 WL 425158, at *3 (Del. Super. Jan. 29, 2016) 

(quoting Gerstley v. Mayer, 2015 WL 756981, at *3 (Del. Super. Feb. 11, 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

3 E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 711 A.2d 45, 53 (Del. Super. 1995) (citing Martin v. Nealis 

Motors, Inc., 247 A.2d 831, 833 (Del. 1968)). 

4 Grasso v. First USA Bank, 713 A.2d 304, 307 (Del. Super. 1998). 

5

Jardel Co., Inc. v. Hughes, 523 A.2d 518, 529 (Del. 1987). 

6

Id.

7 Cloroben Chem. Corp. v. Comegys, 464 A.2d 887, 891 (Del. 1983). 

8

Id. (internal citations omitted). 

9

See Brown v. United Water Del. Inc., 3 A.3d 272, 276 (Del. 2010) (“Ordinarily, questions of gross negligence and 

willful or wanton conduct are for the jury and are not susceptible to summary adjudication.”). 

10 Greenlee v. Imperial Homes Corp., 1994 WL 465556, at *9 (Del. Super. July 19, 1994) (citing Jardel Co., Inc., 

523 A.2d at 527)).
3

4. In support of its Motion, Defendant contends “the evidence in this case wholly 

fails to establish that [Defendant] acted so outrageously, from an evil motive, or with reckless 

indifference to end users of its product . . . .”11 The Court disagrees. Plaintiff has submitted 

evidence which demonstrates that Defendant was aware of the Mega Mite’s bridging issues but 

neither trained its end-users on how to clear a bridged hopper nor took steps to rectify the 

problem. Also, there is evidence to indicate the warning sign was not adequate for the particular 

risk posed by the bridging phenomenon. Further, despite an awareness of numerous accidents 

that resulted in catastrophic injuries, Defendant did very little to make the Mega Mite safer. In

viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court concludes that issues of fact 

remain with respect to Defendant’s claimed reckless indifference. Accordingly, summary 

judgment is inappropriate.

NOW, THEREFORE, this 9th day of August, 2016, Defendant’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment on Punitive Damages is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Richard F. Stokes

_________________________________

The Honorable Richard F. Stokes

cc: Prothonotary’s Office

Matthew R. Fogg, Esquire

Debra C. Aldrich, Esquire

Kevin J. Connors, Esquire

 

11 Def.’s Op. Br. in Supp. of its Mot. for Summ. J. at 16.