Title: Wilkenson v. Messinger
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 394, 2001
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 29, 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IAN C. WILKINSON,
§
§
No. 394, 2001
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below—Superior Court
§
of the State of Delaware, in
v.
§
and for New Castle County
§
C.A. No. 98C-07-007
CATHY MESSINGER,
§
§
Plaintiff Below-
§
Appellee.
§
Submitted: August 16, 2001
Decided:
August 29, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 29th day of August 2001, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The defendant-appellant, Ian C. Wilkinson, has petitioned this
Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to appeal from the Superior
Court’s interlocutory order on July 23, 2001 denying Reargument of the
Superior Court’s April 27, 2001 order granting the motion of plaintiff-
appellee Cathy Messinger for a new trial.  Following trial in the Superior
Court in this motor vehicle accident case, the jury returned a verdict
assessing 30% liability against the defendant and 70% liability against the
plaintiff.  The Superior Court granted Messinger’s motion for a new trial1
on the basis that there was no expert evidence supporting negligence on the
part of the plaintiff and the references to plaintiff’s negligence in defense
                                          
1 The Superior Court also denied the defense motion for costs as moot.
2
counsel’s closing argument should have been excluded.  The Superior
Court also denied Wilkinson’s subsequent motion for Reargument.
(2)
On August 13, 2001, the Superior Court refused to certify an
interlocutory appeal to this Court pursuant to Rule 42 because a review of
the interlocutory order would not substantially reduce further litigation or
otherwise serve considerations of justice.
(3)
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the
sound discretion of this Court and are granted only in exceptional
circumstances.2  We have examined the Superior Court’s April 27, 2001
order granting Messinger’s motion for a new trial and its July 23, 2001
order denying Wilkinson’s motion for Reargument according to the criteria
set forth in Rule 42.  In the exercise of its discretion, this Court has
concluded that exceptional circumstances do not exist in this case to merit
interlocutory review of the decisions of the Superior Court.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the within
interlocutory appeal is REFUSED.
BY THE COURT:
Myron T. Steele                
           
           
Justice
                                          
2 Supr. Ct. R. 42(b).