Taylor v. Green Acres Farm, Inc. ( 2018 )

SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
E. SCOTT BRADLEY 1 The Circle, Suite 2
JUDGE GEORGETOWN, DE 19947
May 7, 2018
Edward C. Gill, Esquire David C. Malatesta, Jr., Esquire
Law Office of Edward C. Gill, P.A. Kent & McBride, P.C.
16 N. Bedford Street 824 N. Market Street, Suite 805
P.O. Box 824 Wilmington, DE 19801
Georgetown, DE 19947
RE: Brian Taylor v. Green Acres Farm, Inc., and Jonathan Hurd
C.A. No.: S17C-01-012 ESB
Dear Counsel:
This is my decision on the Amended Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
Defendants Green Acres Farm, Inc., and Jonathan Hurd in this personal injury action
arising out of a motor vehicle collision where Plaintiff Brian Taylor drove his
motorcycle into the back of Hurd’s dump truck. Hurd was an employee of Green
Acres Farm, Inc. Hurd was driving a Green Acres dump truck when he pulled out of
a farm field and onto Dairy Farm Road and headed northbound. Prior to turning onto
Dairy Farm Road, Hurd came to a complete stop and looked both ways. Hurd saw a
black sport utility vehicle approximately a quarter of a mile down the road, but he did
not see Taylor’s motorcycle. Hurd pulled out onto Dairy Farm Road and was on it
for approximately 9.9 seconds and had traveled 136.9 feet when his dump truck was
struck in the rear by Taylor’s motorcycle. Taylor survived the accident, but has no
recollection of the events leading up to it.
Taylor filed a complaint alleging that Hurd was negligent in (1) failing to yield
the right of way, (2) operating a vehicle at a speed greater than able to avoid a
collision, (3) careless and inattentive driving, and (4) reckless driving. Taylor alleges
that Green Acres is vicariously liable for Hurd’s actions.
I have granted the Amended Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Green
Acres and Hurd because the evidence established that Taylor was at fault.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court will grant summary judgment only when no material issues of fact
exist, and the moving party bears the burden of establishing the non-existence of
material issues of fact.1 Once the moving party meets its burden, the burden shifts to
the non-moving party to establish the existence of material issues of fact.2 The Court
views the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. 3 Where the
moving party produces an affidavit or other evidence sufficient under Superior Court
Civil Rule 56 in support of its motion and the burden shifts, the non-moving party
1
Moore v. Sizemore, 405 A.2d 679, 680 (Del. 1979).
2
Id. at 681.
3
Id. at 680.
2
may not rest on its own pleadings, but must provide evidence showing a genuine
issue of material fact for trial.4 If, after discovery, the non-moving party cannot make
a sufficient showing of the existence of an essential element of the case, then
summary judgment must be granted.5 If, however, material issues of fact exist or if
the Court determines that it does not have sufficient facts to enable it to apply the law
to the facts before it, then summary judgment is not appropriate.6
DISCUSSION
In order to survive a motion for summary judgment, Taylor must adequately
establish all of the elements essential to his case that he would have the burden to
prove at trial.7 Negligence is not presumed.8 In Delaware, a negligence claim
requires a plaintiff to “prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant’s
actions breached a duty of care in a way that proximately caused the plaintiff’s
injuries.”9 When the plaintiff’s claim involves bodily injuries, “the casual connection
4
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56(e); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).
5
Burkhart v. Davies, 602 A.2d 56, 59 (Del. 1991), cert. den., 112 S. Ct. 1946 (1992);
Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. 317 (1986).
6
Ebersole v. Lowengrub, 180 A.2d 467, 470 (Del. 1962).
7
Roache v. Charney, 38 A.3d 281, 286 (Del. 2012).
8
Wright v. Adams Market, LLC, 2015 WL 900806, at *1 (Del. Super. Mar. 2, 2015).
9
Roache, 38 A.3d at 286.
3
between the defendant’s alleged negligent conduct and the plaintiff’s alleged injury
must be proven by direct testimony of a competent medical expert.”10 Where the
nonmoving party fails to produce sufficient proof of an essential element of that
party’s case, the moving party is entitled to summary judgment.11 This Court will not
draw unreasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.12
The Accident Investigation
Delaware State Police Officer Nicholas Demalto investigated the accident.
The accident occurred on Dairy Farm Road at 3:41 p.m. on September 3, 2015. The
weather conditions were good. The roadway was dry and it was daylight. Dairy
Farm Road is a two lane road with the north and south bound lanes separated by a
yellow line. Dairy Farm Road is straight with a vertical curve present and cresting
prior to the area of the collision. The speed limit is 45 miles per hour. Taylor struck
the left rear corner of Hurd’s dump truck in the northbound lane of travel. Officer
Demalto identified the point of impact between Taylor’s motorcycle and Hurd’s dump
truck and measured the distance between the point of impact and the point where
Hurd left a field path and turned onto Dairy Farm Road. This distance was 110.6 feet.
10
Id.
11
Manerchia v. Kirkwood Fitness and Racquetball Clubs, Inc., 992 A.2d 1237, 2010 WL
1114927, at *2 (Del. Mar 25, 2010)(Table).
12
Smith v. Delaware State University, 47 A.3d 472, 477 (Del. 2012).
4
The dump truck was 26.3 feet long, which when added to the point of impact of 110.6
feet results in the dump truck’s total distance of 136.9 feet. Officer Demalto also
conducted acceleration tests to determine the travel time for the dump truck from the
point of entry onto Dairy Farm Road to the point of impact. The tests were conducted
using the same dump truck, loaded under similar cargo weight, and with a driver who
did the same type of work for Green Acres as did Hurd. The acceleration tests
considered both normal and full acceleration.
Green Acres and Hurd retained David Rineholt of Collision Technologies LLC
to investigate the accident and reach an opinion as to the cause of it. Rineholt found
that Hurd’s dump truck entered onto Dairy Farm Road approximately 110.6 feet south
(prior to) the point of impact. Taking into consideration the acceleration rate, length
of the dump truck and the distance between the entry of the dump truck onto Dairy
Farm Road and the point of impact, Rineholt concluded that it took the dump truck
approximately 9.9 seconds to go from the point of entry to the point of impact. Put
another way, the dump truck was on Dairy Farm Road for 9.9 seconds and had
traveled 136.9 feet before Hurd’s motorcycle ran into the back of it. Using the 45
miles per hour speed limit as the speed of Taylor’s motorcycle, Rineholt concluded
that Taylor’s motorcycle would have been located approximately 653 feet prior to the
point of impact when Hurd’s dump truck entered onto Dairy Farm Road. Assuming
5
higher rates of speed for Taylor’s motorcycle put his motorcycle further away from
the point of impact. Taking into consideration a 1.6 to 2.0 second perception/reaction
time, left Taylor with at least 7.9 seconds to avoid Hurd’s dump truck. Given all of
this, Rineholt concluded that (1) Hurd’s dump truck did not dart out into the path of
Taylor’s motorcycle, and (2) the collision was caused by Taylor’s misjudgment of his
closing speed to the rear of Hurd’s dump truck or Taylor’s simple lack of attention.
Viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Taylor, there are simply no set
of facts that provide him with an avenue to recovery. In order to meet his burden,
Taylor had to at least establish all of the essential elements that are necessary to his
claims. The record is devoid of any facts that Hurd breached a duty of care he owed
to Taylor. There is simply no evidence that Hurd pulled out in front of Taylor. The
record demonstrates that Hurd had established himself properly on Dairy Farm Road.
Taylor’s argument that because he ran into the back of Hurd’s dump truck
automatically establishes negligence on the part of Hurd is baseless. The fact that an
accident occurred is not evidence of negligence. Without any knowledge about the
accident, and more importantly, without an expert to establish causation of the
accident, Taylor simply has been unable to establish the essential elements of his
claims. This is a case, which by its nature, requires expert analysis. It is not a simple
case of Hurd pulling out in front of Taylor. If that were the case, then the accident
6
would not have happened 110.6 feet down the road from where Hurd entered onto
Dairy Farm Road. Instead, this case requires expert analysis to determine the cause
of it. Hurd retained an expert to analyze the accident and reach certain conclusions
about who caused it. Hurd’s expert concluded that Taylor’s negligence caused the
accident and that Hurd was in no way at fault. Taylor does not have an expert and
cannot challenge Hurd’s expert’s conclusions. Taylor also cannot challenge the facts.
Taylor cannot say that Hurd pulled out in front of him and he cannot say that he was
paying attention to the road in front of him. Quite simply, Taylor is unable to
challenge the facts or Hurd’s expert’s opinions about who caused the accident.
Other Motions
Taylor filed a Motion for a Daubert Hearing and a Motion to Strike. Taylor
wants a Daubert Hearing so that he can challenge the work done by Demalto and
Rineholt in reconstructing the accident. I have denied it. There is nothing unusual
generally about accident reconstruction and Taylor has not pointed out a good reason
for having a Daubert hearing in this case. Demalto made certain measurements
regarding Hurd’s point of entry onto Dairy Farm Road and the point of impact
between Hurd’s dump truck and Taylor’s motorcycle. He also supervised the
acceleration tests for the dump truck. Rineholt reviewed Demalto’s work, performed
his own analysis of the accident, and offered several opinions about the cause of the
7
accident. There is nothing unusual about any of this work. Quite simply, a party is
not entitled to a Daubert hearing in every case that involves expert testimony. The
Court still retains discretion as to whether to grant or deny such a request depending
on the circumstances.13 I have concluded that this case presents nothing but the usual
accident reconstruction analysis and that no Daubert hearing is necessary.
Taylor also wants to strike Officer Demalto’s opinions about the cause of the
accident. That issue is moot since I only relied on Rineholt’s opinions. I viewed
Demalto’s work as being factual in nature.
CONCLUSION
The Amended Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Green Acres
Farm, Inc., and Jonathan Hurd is GRANTED and the Motion for a Daubert Hearing
and a Motion to Strike filed by Plaintiff Brian Taylor are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
/s/ E. Scott Bradley
E. Scott Bradley
ESB/sal
cc: Prothonotary
13
Kuhmo Tire Company v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999); see also Minner v.
American Mortgage & Guaranty Company, 791 A.2d 826, 844-45 (Del. Super. Ct. 2000).
8