Title: Collins v. FW Woolworth Co.
Citation: 295 A.2d 732
Docket Number: N/A
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 8, 1972

295 A.2d 732 (1972)
Robert COLLINS, Elizabeth Ann Collins, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants,
v.
F. W. WOOLWORTH CO., a New York corporation, Defendant Below, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Delaware.
August 8, 1972.
N. Maxson Terry, Jr., of Terry &amp; Terry, Dover, for plaintiffs below, appellants.
John J. Schmittinger, of Schmittinger &amp; Rodriguez, Dover, for defendant below, appellee.
*733 Before CAREY and HERRMANN, JJ., and SHORT, Vice Chancellor.
PER CURIAM.
In this slip-and-fall negligence case, the Superior Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Both the plaintiff and her husband testified on deposition that the floor of the defendant's store was slippery because of excess waxing and polishing which caused plaintiff to fall. The defendant's case on summary judgment purported to negate those contentions by the testimony of the defendant's maintenance personnel as to their routine procedures and methods in waxing and polishing the floors.
In granting summary judgment to the defendant, the Superior Court stated:
The Superior Court erred as to the burden of proof. The case is controlled by Howard v. Food Fair Stores, Del.Supr., 201 A.2d 638 (1964), a summary judgment situation, rather than Wilson v. Derrickson, Del.Supr., 175 A.2d 400 (1961), a directed verdict situation.
Under Howard, the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment unless and until, as the moving party, it had produced:
It is our opinion that the defendant in the instant case has failed to meet the test imposed upon it by Howard: it has failed to negate, with the necessary certitude, the plaintiff's claim because the record at this stage permits the reasonable inference that the plaintiff slipped and fell by reason of excess wax and the resultant slippery condition of the defendant's floor; consequently, the defendant has failed to demonstrate, sufficiently to support its motion for summary judgment, that the plaintiff must necessarily fail at trial.
Accordingly, the judgment below must be reversed and the cause remanded for further action not inconsistent herewith.