The Delaware Supreme Court recently affirmed summary judgment in favor of a premises owner and snow removal contractor represented by Reger Rizzo & Darnall LLP and Partner Arthur D. Kuhl. The Court held that a plaintiff’s self-contradictory testimony was insufficient to create a jury issue where surveillance footage and other objective evidence directly contradicted the plaintiff’s account of the accident. The decision serves as an important reminder of the value of preserving video evidence and maintenance records following a reported incident.

Background

On January 27, 2022, the plaintiff claimed he was injured while working in the parking lot of a supermarket. The plaintiff advanced several theories regarding the cause of his fall, including allegations of wintry conditions and a claim that a shopping cart locked up while being pushed.

Security camera footage captured the parking lot, including the time of the alleged fall. The footage showed that the parking lot was dry in the area where the plaintiff fell. In addition, a snow removal company hired by the premises owner had cleared the parking lot several days earlier, and weather reports confirmed that no additional winter weather events or precipitation occurred before the incident.

The plaintiff filed suit against the premises owner and the snow removal contractor, alleging premises liability negligence and failure to remove hazardous wintry conditions. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the security footage, weather reports, and snow removal records contradicted the plaintiff’s claims and demonstrated the absence of any hazardous condition.

The Court’s Decision

The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff appealed and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed.

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff could not rely solely upon “his self-contradictory deposition testimony,” which was “further contradicted by the security footage of the parking lot.” As a result, the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of premises liability negligence.

Key Takeaways

This case reinforces the critical importance of preserving surveillance footage and documentation related to conditions before and after an alleged fall. In this case, video footage of the parking lot was instrumental in demonstrating that the area was dry and free of the hazardous conditions alleged by the plaintiff.

Businesses should have procedures in place to promptly preserve surveillance recordings, weather records, maintenance logs, snow removal records, and incident reports whenever an accident is reported. Without such evidence, defendants may lose the opportunity to challenge allegations that otherwise lack factual support.

The case also confirms that, under Delaware law, a plaintiff’s allegations alone may not be sufficient to survive summary judgment when objective evidence demonstrates that the defendant acted reasonably and directly contradicts the plaintiff’s version of events. In such circumstances, a jury trial may not be required to resolve the dispute.

If you have questions regarding premises liability claims, snow removal liability, or evidence preservation practices, please contact attorneys Arthur D. Kuhl at akuhl@regerlaw.com or (302) 477-7101 and Martin D. Page at mpage@regerlaw.com or (302) 477-7102.