Rivera V. Diamond State Port Corp.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY PEDRO RIVERA, JR, Plaintiff, v. DIAMOND STATE PORT CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, AMERIBROM, INC., A foreign corporation, GREAT LAKE CHEMICAL CORPORATION, a Delaware ) Corporation, and MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, a ) Foreign corporation, Defendants. Submitted: Decided: ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. 04C-04-144 MJB ) ) ) ) March 13, 2006 April 6, 2006 On Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Diamond State Port Corporation. DENIED. OPINION AND ORDER Robert Pasquale, Esquire, Cynthia H. Pruitt, Esquire, Doroshow, Pasquale, Krawitz & Bhaya, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Plaintiff Pedro Rivera, Jr. Donald E. Reid, Esquire, Jason A. Cincilla, Esquire, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Defendant Diamond State Port Corporation. BRADY, J. Procedural History This action was filed on April 14, 2004. This is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Diamond State Port Corporation ( Diamond State ) against Plaintiff Pedro Rivera, Jr. ( Rivera ). Facts The instant dispute arises from injuries Rivera sustained allegedly due to harmful exposure to methyl bromide while he was employed by defendant Royal Fumigation, Inc. as a fumigation supervisor. Diamond State owned the building in which the fumigation took place during the time Rivera alleges the harmful exposure to methyl bromide occurred. The allegations against Diamond State include: that it negligently maintained the warehouse on which the fumigation took place; and that it failed to remedy a dangerous condition. 1 The dangerous condition is alleged to have existed during the ventilation process. Rivera alleges he had to stay inside the warehouse while the fumigation took place to ensure the fans drawing the methyl bromide out of the warehouse would continue to run because sometimes the fans would shut off and the electrical breaker would have to be reset by Rivera. Rivera attributes the alleged problem with the fans and electrical breaker to Diamond State. 1 Plaintiff s Response to Defendant Diamond State Port s Motion for Summary Judgment at *1. Standard of Review The standard for granting summary judgment is high.2 Summary judgment may be granted where the record shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.3 In determining whether there is a genuine issue of material fact, the evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. 4 When taking all of the facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, if there remains a genuine issue of material fact requiring trial, summary judgment may not be granted.5 Applicable Law Diamond State argues Rivera has failed to develop sufficient evidence in the record upon which reasonable jurors could find in his favor. Diamond State further argues the record shows Diamond State did not maintain active control of the premises, as required to find Diamond State liable. Therefore, summary judgment should be granted in favor of Diamond State. Rivera counters by stating the failure of Diamond State to properly maintain the electrical system at the warehouse necessitated Rivera staying in the 2 Mumford & Miller Concrete, Inc. v. Burns, 682 A.2d 627 (Del. 1996). Super.Ct.Civ.R. 56(c). 4 Muggleworth v. Fierro, 877 A.2d 81, 83-84 (Del. Super. Ct. 2005). 5 Gutridge v. Iffland, 889 A.2d 283 (Del. 2005). 3 warehouse during the fumigation process to ensure the fans would continue drawing the methyl bromide outside and caused him injuries due to exposure to methyl bromide. Rivera further counters that Diamond State maintained adequate active control of the premises to be found liable for his injuries. At the time this Motion was filed there was no applicable case scheduling order in place. On March 13, 2006 this Court set a discovery deadline of September 29, 2006. The Court is unwilling to grant summary judgment based on a factual record that may be further developed before the discovery deadline. The Motion for Summary Judgment by Diamond State is premature. Conclusion For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby DENIED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. __________/s/__________ M. Jane Brady Superior Court Judge
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
