Court Opinion

ID: 9392220
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-04 16:05:28.22152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:05.870061
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

     ALBERT HOPKINS, IRMA HOPKINS                          )
     and FELECIA DANIELS,                                  )
                                                           )
                               Plaintiffs,                 )
                                                           )
     v.                                                    )     C.A. No. N21C-09-196 EMD
                                                           )
     BETTY OWENS,                                          )
                                                           )
                                                           )
                               Defendant.                  )

     ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT BETTY OWENS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
    JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO DELAWARE SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL RULE 56

          Upon consideration of Defendant Betty Owens’ Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant

to Delaware Superior Court Civil Rule 56 (the “Motion”) filed by Defendant Betty Owens;

Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Response”) filed by

Plaintiffs Albert Hopkins, Irma Hopkins and Felecia Daniels (collectively, “Plaintiffs”); and the

entire record of this civil proceeding:

          1.     The standard of review on a motion for summary judgment is well-settled. The

Court’s principal function when considering a motion for summary judgment is to examine the

record to determine whether genuine issues of material fact exist, “but not to decide such

issues.”1 Summary judgment will be granted if, after viewing the record in a light most favorable

to a non-moving party, no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law.2 If, however, the record reveals that material facts are in dispute, or

if the factual record has not been developed thoroughly enough to allow the Court to apply the

1
  Merrill v. Crothall-American Inc., 606 A.2d 96, 99-100 (Del. 1992) (internal citations omitted); Oliver B. Cannon
& Sons, Inc. v. Dorr-Oliver, Inc., 312 A.2d 322, 325 (Del. Super. Ct. 1973).
2
  Id.
law to the factual record, then summary judgment will not be granted.3 The moving party bears

the initial burden of demonstrating that the undisputed facts support his claims or defenses.4 If

the motion is properly supported, then the burden shifts to the non-moving party to demonstrate

that there are material issues of fact for the resolution by the ultimate fact-finder.5

         2.       First, the Court finds that the record has not been thoroughly developed enough to

apply the law to the factual record. Many facts regarding liability remain disputed as to the

interplay between 21 Del. C. § 7103(a), 21 Del § 7103(e)(3) and the facts of this civil

proceeding. In fact, Ms. Owens fails to even reference Section 7103(a) in the Motion.

Moreover, Ms. Owens relies upon out-of-state authorities that vary from the applicable Delaware

Statute.6

         3.       The parties dispute which party exercised due care under 21 Del. C. § 7103.

Whether Ms. Owens improperly drove between, obstructed, hindered or otherwise interfered

with Plaintiffs while Plaintiffs were in a funeral procession is a question of fact for the jury. As

such, the Court finds that genuine issues exist as to material facts and Ms. Owens is not entitled

to judgment as a matter of law.

         4.       Ms. Owens argues that she is entitled to summary judgment because the Plaintiffs

are not asserting various crossclaims or third-party claims against each other. Ms. Owens

contends she is entitled to judgment because Ms. Hopkins and Ms. Daniels did not name Mr.

Hopkins (the driver) as a defendant. Ms. Owens asserted this as an affirmative defense and is

now making a claim under Civil Rule 19. In essence, Ms. Owens is contending that she and Mr.

3
  Ebersole v. Lowengrub, 180 A.2d 467, 470 (Del. 1962). See also Cook v. City of Harrington, 1990 WL 35244 at
*3 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 22, 1990)(citing Ebersole, 180 A.2d at 467)(“Summary judgment will not be granted under
any circumstances when the record indicates … that it is desirable to inquire more thoroughly into the facts in order
to clarify the application of law to the circumstances.”).
4
  Moore v. Sizemore, 405 A.2d 679, 680 (Del. 1970)(citing Ebersole, 180 A.2d at 470).
5
  See Brzoska v. Olsen, 668 A.2d 1355, 1364 (Del. 1995).
6
  Compare Fla. State Sec. 316.1974(3)(a) with 21 Del. C. § 7103(a).

                                                          2
Hopkins are, potentially, joint tortfeasors as to the injuries suffered by Ms. Hopkins and Ms.

Daniels. Joint tortfeasors are not normally indispensable or necessary parties. It is well settled

law that joint tortfeasors are not necessary parties whose joinder is mandatory but are merely

permissive parties.7

           5.      For the foregoing reasons the Motion is DENIED.

           IT IS SO ORDERED.

May 3, 2023
Wilmington, Delaware

                                                             /s/ Eric M. Davis
                                                             Eric M. Davis, Judge

7
    Roberts v. Delmarva Power & Light Co., 2007 WL 2319761, at *3 (Del. Super. Aug. 6, 2007).

                                                        3