Malatesta v. Szewczyk, et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE FRED S. SILVERMAN NEW CASTLE COUNTY COURTHOUSE 500 North King Street, Suite 10400 Wilmington, DE 19801-3733 Telephone (302) 255-0669 JUDGE May 20, 2009 (VIA E-FILED) Bernard Van Ogtrop, Esquire Seitz, Van Ogtrop & Green 222 Delaware Avenue P.O. Box 68 Wilmington, DE 19899 Christopher Logullo, Esquire Chrissinger & Baumberger 3 Mill Road, Suite 301 Wilmington, DE 19806 Beth Christman, Esquire Casarino Christman Shalk Ransom & Doss 800 N. King Street P.O. Box 1276 Wilmington, DE 19899 Submitted: February 27, 2009 Decided: May 20, 2009 RE: Elizabeth L. Malatesta and Nellie R. Malatesta v. Stephan A. Szewczyk and Mark M. Abbott, C.A. No. 07C-05-173 FSS Upon Defendant Mark Abbott s Motion for Summary Judgment GRANTED Dear Counsel: This is a personal injury case arising from an automobile collision. This finalizes the court s decision granting Defendant Mark Abbott s motion for summary judgment. Abbott claims Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate an essential element of their negligence claim, specifically that Abbott breached his duty of care. Bernard Van Ogtrop, Esquire Beth Christman, Esquire Christopher Logullo, Esquire Malatesta v. Szewczyk Letter Order May 20, 2009 Page 2 The facts are virtually uncontested. The collision occurred on January 12, 2007 at the Hollymount Road and Indian Mission Road intersection in Sussex County, Delaware. The intersection has a flashing yellow light for vehicles traveling on Indian Mission Road, and a flashing red light for vehicles traveling on Hollymount Road. Before the collision, Defendant Abbott was on Indian Mission and Defendant Szewczyk was on Hollymount. As Abbott approached the intersection, he saw a car on Hollymount cross Indian Mission. That car was occupied by Roman Cybak, Defendant Stefan Szewczyk s nephew. Szewczyk was following Cybak on their way to dinner. Plaintiffs were passengers in Szewczyk s vehicle. After Cybak crossed Indian Mission Road, Szewczyk stopped at the Hollymount flashing red light and stop sign. Cybak waited for his uncle on the other side of Indian Mission. Cybak had noticed Abbott s vehicle approaching Hollymount before he crossed Indian Mission, and he believed there was enough time for both him and his uncle to cross. Abbott continued toward the intersection, either reaching the road s 50 m.p.h. speed limit or close to it, but not exceeding it. As he closed on the intersection, Abbott covered the brake with his foot. Upon Abbott s approach, however, Szewczyk tried to make it through the intersection. Abbott tried to stop. Before hitting Szewczyk, Abbott left a 58 feet skid mark in his wake. Plaintiffs were seriously hurt. Szewczyk admits he simply did not see Abbott s car. Plaintiffs filed suit on May 16, 2007. Abbott moved for summary judgment on January 15, 2009. The court heard oral argument on February 20, 2009, giving Abbott leave to file an expert opinion clearly delineating Abbott s negligence or lack thereof. Abbott hired an accident reconstruction specialist and submitted his opinion on February 25, 2009. Plaintiffs response was received on February 27, 2009. Bernard Van Ogtrop, Esquire Beth Christman, Esquire Christopher Logullo, Esquire Malatesta v. Szewczyk Letter Order May 20, 2009 Page 3 Here, Plaintiffs must show that, (1) Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiffs, (2) Defendant breached that duty, and (3) that breach was a proximate and legal cause of Plaintiff s injuries.1 Accordingly, in his motion for summary judgment, Defendant must show that there is no genuine issue of fact relating to the question of negligence and that the proven facts preclude the conclusion of negligence on [his] part. 2 Plaintiffs failure to prove an essential element of their case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. 3 Therefore, the court must first determine if Plaintiffs failed to prove negligence.4 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, there is no evidence showing Abbott was negligent. Unlike Szewczyk, Abbott was aware of his environment, having noticed Cybak s vehicle cross the road and Swezcyk s vehicle stopped at the Hollymount stop sign. The worst Plaintiffs can say about Abbott is that he did not slow down appreciably as he approached the intersection, facing a flashing yellow light. The rules of the road, however, do not require a driver to slow down, as a matter of law. Abbott was not speeding as he approached the intersection and, even if his foot covered the brake, he kept a proper lookout for danger, thereby acting carefully under the circumstances. Abbott s expert report, which is undisputed, supports that finding. Plaintiffs have not been able to produce evidence to the contrary. In short, had this case gone to trial, giving Plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt, the jury would have to have concluded that the collision was caused by Szewczyk s failure to see Abbott approaching and his decision to enter the 1 Pipher v. Parsell, 930 A.2d 890, 892 (Del. 2007) (citations omitted). 2 Hazel v. Del. Supermarkets, Inc., 953 A.2d 705, 709 (Del. 2008) (quoting Howard v. Food Fair Stores, New Castle, Inc., 201 A.2d 638, 640 (Del. 1964)). 3 Burkhart v. Davies, 602 A.2d 56, 58-59 (Del. 1991) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1989)). 4 Hazel, 953 A.2d at 709. Bernard Van Ogtrop, Esquire Beth Christman, Esquire Christopher Logullo, Esquire Malatesta v. Szewczyk Letter Order May 20, 2009 Page 4 intersection in an unsafe way, without regard for approaching traffic. Therefore, Defendant Mark Abbott s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Very Truly Yours, /s/ Fred S. Silverman cc: Prothonotary (civil)
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.
