Title: Lagodmos v. Home Depot, Inc., et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 40, 2011
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 9, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
THEODORE LAGODMOS,  
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
HOME DEPOT, INC. and U.S. 
LEISURE/SUN TERRACE, INC.,  
 
          Defendants Below- 
          Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 40, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 09C-04-264 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: August 12, 2011 
Decided: September 9, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 9th day of September 2011, upon consideration of the briefs of 
the parties and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The plaintiff-appellant, Theodore Lagodmos, has filed an 
appeal from the Superior Court’s January 4, 2011 order granting the motion 
of the defendants-appellees, Home Depot, Inc. and U.S. Leisure/Sun 
Terrace, Inc., for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Superior Court 
Civil Rule 50.  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that, in April 2009, Lagodmos, acting pro 
se, filed a complaint in the Superior Court alleging that he was injured when 
 
2
a plastic picnic bench manufactured by U.S. Leisure/Sun Terrace, Inc. and 
offered for sale at the Home Depot in New Castle, Delaware, collapsed 
when he sat on it.  In January 2010, when Lagodmos was unable to produce 
a medical expert to testify on his behalf, defense counsel filed a motion for 
summary judgment.  The Superior Court denied the motion without 
prejudice pending a medical examination of Lagodmos by a medical expert 
designated by the defense.  In April 2010, the medical examination took 
place.  The medical expert’s report found that Lagodmos had sustained soft 
tissue injury as a result of his fall at Home Depot, but that his numerous 
other medical complaints were unrelated to the fall.   
 
(3) 
By June 2010, Lagodmos had located an attorney who agreed to 
represent him in reaching a settlement of the case.  Counsel for the parties 
entered into a settlement agreement, the Superior Court was so advised and 
the July 14, 2010 trial date was removed from the court calendar.  In July 
2010, Lagodmos filed a motion disavowing the settlement.  The Superior 
Court then re-scheduled the trial for January 4 and 5, 2011.   
 
(4) 
Prior to trial, defense counsel filed a motion in limine to 
preclude any claims of product or design defect and a motion for summary 
judgment on the ground that Lagodmos had failed to designate a medical 
expert.  The Superior Court granted the motion in limine, but permitted trial 
 
3
to proceed on Lagodmos’s personal injury claims, with the limitation that 
only the medical expert who had examined Lagodmos for the defense could 
testify.  Defense counsel made clear that the expert would not be called on 
behalf of the defendants.  Lagodmos made no arrangements for the expert to 
testify on his behalf at trial.  Following presentation of Lagodmos’s case in 
chief, defense counsel moved for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50.  
The Superior Court granted the motion.    
 
(5) 
In this appeal from the Superior Court’s grant of the defense 
motion for judgment as a matter of law, Lagodmos claims that a) he 
presented sufficient evidence at trial to permit the jury to find the defendants 
liable for his injuries; and b) defense counsel and the Superior Court 
conspired to thwart his efforts to obtain compensation for his injuries. 
 
(6) 
In Delaware, in order to prevail in a negligence action, a 
plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant’s 
actions breached a duty of care in a way that proximately caused injury to 
him.1  In a claim for bodily injuries, the causal connection between the 
defendant’s alleged negligent conduct and the plaintiff’s alleged injuries 
must be proven by the direct testimony of a competent medical expert.2  Our 
                                                 
1 Russell v. K-Mart Corp., 761 A.2d 1, 5 (Del. 2000). 
2 Money v. Manville Corp., 596 A.2d 1372, 1376-77 (Del. 1991). 
 
4
review of the trial transcript in this case reveals that Lagodmos, who was the 
sole witness in his case, failed to present any such evidence.   
 
(7) 
Under Rule 50, the Superior Court may grant a motion for 
judgment as a matter of law if “a party has been fully heard on an issue and 
there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find 
for that party on that issue . . . .”  Because there was no legally sufficient 
evidentiary basis for the jury to find for Lagodmos, the Superior Court’s 
grant of the defense motion for judgment as a matter of law was proper.  
Finally, seeing absolutely no basis in the record for Lagodmos’s second 
claim of impropriety on the part of either defense counsel or the Superior 
Court, we summarily reject that claim. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice