Opinion ID: 2445490
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Summary Judgment on Gross Negligence Claim Was Inappropriate

Text: The first issue is whether or not United Water was entitled to summary judgment on the claims alleging gross negligence and willful or wanton conduct. This Court reviews de novo the Superior Court's grant or denial of summary judgment to determine whether, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the moving party has demonstrated that there are no material issues of fact in dispute and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [11] Ordinarily, questions of gross negligence and willful or wanton conduct are for the jury and are not susceptible of summary adjudication. [12] Here, a jury could reasonably find that United Water was on notice that the hydrants near the Browns' house had been painted over and not properly maintained. United Water's failure to correct those known problems, which could foreseeably cause damage or injury at any site reliant upon a United Water hydrant, [13] would constitute an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of care i.e., gross negligence. [14] That failure, however, would not constitute willful or wanton behavior, which we have defined as conduct reflecting a conscious indifference or I don't care attitude. [15]