Opinion ID: 2399640
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Trial Court's ruling on the Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Comparative Negligence Case

Text: Delaware's comparative negligence statute provides: In all actions brought to recover damages for negligence which results in death or injury to person or property, the fact that the plaintiff may have been contributorily negligent shall not bar a recovery by the plaintiff or his legal representative where such negligence was not greater than the negligence of the defendant or the combined negligence of all defendants against whom recovery is sought, but any damages awarded shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributed to the plaintiff. [5] The Trievel Plaintiffs contend that, absent extraordinary evidence, a trial court is not permitted to determine the relative degrees of fault in a comparative negligence case because this determination impermissible infringes on the jury's function of weighing the evidence. Alternatively, they argue that, even if a determination was permissible, the trial judge did not properly view the evidence in the light most favorable to them as the non-moving parties. They rely principally on the fact that the trial judge ruled that a factual issue existed whether Sabo was negligent in a manner proximately causing the accident. Pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 50, a trial judge may find as a matter of law that there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on an issue. [6] When presented with a Rule 50 motion, a trial judge is under a duty to submit the factual issues to the jury for its determination if, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the trial judge finds that a reasonable jury could justifiably find in favor of the plaintiff. [7] When the trial judge, however, determines that, under the facts presented, no reasonable juror could find in favor of the plaintiff, the trial judge is no longer required to submit the matter to the jury. In making this factual determination, it is improper for the trial judge to weigh the facts or pass on the credibility of the witnesses. [8] Generally, questions as to the existence of negligence are reserved for the trier of fact. [9] Under Delaware's former contributory negligence standard, only in rare instances, when the facts permitted reasonable persons to draw but one inference, was it appropriate for the trial court to enter judgment. [10] Similarly under a comparative negligence statute, such as 10 Del.C. § 8132, the determination of the respective degrees of negligence attributable to the parties usually presents a question of fact for the jury. [11] In rare cases, however, where the evidence requires a finding that a plaintiff's negligence exceeded that of the defendant, it is the duty of the trial court, as a matter of law, to bar recovery. [12] This case is one of those rare cases. Sabo was obligated to proceed through the intersection with caution, observe the speed limit, and keep a proper lookout. [13] Trievel, on the other hand, was under a duty to exercise reasonable care for her own safety. [14] Faced with plainly visible oncoming traffic that presented a visible hazard to pedestrians and bicyclists attempting to cross Route 1, Trievel was under an affirmative obligation to see and appreciate the hazard and to proceed in a careful and intelligent manner. [15] At the time of the collision, as the trial court found, Trievel was approaching from a secondary highway the busy four-lane highway intersection that had no marked crosswalk or even a natural unmarked cross-walk. She had passed through a highway Stop sign and a highway sign that mandated that vehicle traffic go to the right. She was proceeding toward two Do Not Enter signs. While she did stop to observe oncoming traffic, instead of walking her bike across Route 1, as was her habit, she mounted her bike at or near the start of the roadway and pedaled in front of an oncoming white Lincoln automobile in the right lane and then pedaled into the left passing lane of traffic, directly into the path of Sabo's oncoming vehicle, without maintaining a proper lookout or taking adequate care for her own safety. Trievel was on notice that this was a highly dangerous place to cross a heavily traveled four-lane highway, and that she was proceeding in a totally unfavored direction. Given these circumstances, a reasonable person would proceed with extreme caution and exercise a great deal of discretion and reasoned judgment. As the Superior Court held: decedent obviously should not ride out in front of an oncoming car. [16] Despite Trievel's obvious negligence, the Trievel Plaintiffs' assert that Sabo made a seriously negligent maneuver, changing lanes, which in some aggravated fashion caused the accident. [17] In support of this theory, the Trievel Plaintiffs' offered only two witnesses at trial: Mr. John E. Lingo, Jr., an eyewitness, and Mr. Myron Lofgren, an accident reconstruction expert. Mr. Lofgren testified that, from the length and angle of the skid marks, Sabo's truck was traveling 45 mph at the time he started to brake and was in the process of moving from the right hand lane into the left hand lane, towards the left center median, and that this change of lanes was possibly caused by a reaction to slower traffic in the right hand lane. This conclusion is, however, eroded by every eyewitness to the accident. Plaintiffs' own witness, Mr Lingo, testified that he could not emphatically say that he saw Sabo's truck move from the right hand lane to the left hand northbound lane near the intersection. He did, however, testify that Sabo's truck made a movement which was not entirely in the left-hand lane, but that this movement occurred approximately 400-500 feet before the intersection. In addition, there were three other eyewitnesses to the accident who testified that Sabo's truck was in the left hand lane immediately prior to the accident. These witnesses included Paul Dunstan, who was traveling directly behind Sabo's pickup truck at the time of the accident, and Sabo's two passengers, his son and future son-in-law. At trial, there were seven eyewitnesses to this tragic accident, including Sabo, all of whom made contemporary statements to the police that are part of the evidence. None of these witnesses implicated Sabo in any manner. None testified that Sabo was speeding at the time of the accident. None testified that Sabo was doing anything other than traveling normally in the left hand passing lane of Route 1 heading northbound when the decedent entered his path leaving him no time to react. Even the driver of the white Lincoln, who testified for the plaintiffs, refused to fault Sabo. Because the overwhelming evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Trievel Plaintiffs, can only lead to the conclusion that Trievel's negligence was greater than any negligence attributable to Sabo, we find that the Superior Court properly granted Sabo's motion for judgment as a matter of law. [18]