Staedt v. Air Base Carpet Mart Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
JOSEPH STAEDT and,
MARIE STAEDT
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
v.
AIR BASE CARPET MART, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation
Defendants.
C.A. No. N10C-07-075 CLS
ORDER
AND NOW, TO WIT, this 3rd day of January, 2012, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED as follows:
On December 6, 2011, this Court denied Defendant’s, Air Base
Carpet Mart Inc. (“Air Base”) Motion for Summary Judgment to dismiss
Plaintiffs’ Joseph and Marie Staedt (“Plaintiffs”) negligence claims. On
December 14, 2011, Air Base timely 1 moved for an order certifying an
interlocutory appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court of this Court’s
1
Supreme Court Rule 42(c)(i) states that application must be made within 10 days of the
entry of the order from which the appeal is sought. Here, the order was entered on
December 6, 2011 and the application was filed on December 14, 2011. Thus, the
application was timely filed.
1
December 6, 2011 denial of the Motion for Summary Judgment.
Supreme Court Rule 42(b) sets forth the criteria to apply in
determining whether an issue should be certified from the trial court. In
considering whether certification is proper, the court must conclude that (1)
there is a substantial issue; (2) an established legal right exists; and (3) one
or more criteria set forth in the rule.
“Interlocutory appeals are addressed to the discretion of the Court
and are accepted only in exceptional circumstances.” 2 Interlocutory appeals
are only accepted in situations where there are important and urgent reasons
for an immediate determination by the Delaware Supreme Court. 3
Generally, “an order directed to the pleadings falls within the class of
interlocutory orders which are unappealable because it does not establish a
legal right between the parties.” 4 There are however, certain rulings on the
pleadings that substantially affect the merits of the case or change the status
of the parties which warrant an appeal. 5 Air Base has not established that in
this case.
Air Base contends that there is an unsettled question of law as to
whether a landowner owes a business invitee a duty to warn or protect of a
2
DVI Fin. Serv., Inc. v. Imaging Managing Associates, Inc., 1995 WL 269073, at *1
(Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 13, 1995) (emphasis added).
3
Id.
4
Levinson v. Conlon, 385 A.2d 717, 720 (Del. 1978).
5
Id.
2
condition if the business invitee already knows of the condition. However,
in Koutoufaris v. Dick, which was cited in the Court’s order, the Delaware
Supreme Court held that the Delaware comparative negligence statute
modified the common law rule which absolutely barred recovery whenever a
plaintiff assumed a risk of physical harm. 6 Thus, it is settled in Delaware
that a business invitee may still recover for injuries if they were aware of the
dangerous condition. 7
Additionally, after considering the pleadings, issues and Court order
denying summary judgment, this Court finds that the December 6, 2011
decision does not determine a substantial issue or establish a legal right that
warrants Certification of an Interlocutory Appeal. The December 6, 2011
order states that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to proximate cause
and whether Air Base fulfilled its duty in warning and protecting Plaintiff,
Joseph Staedt. Hence, in concluding that genuine issues of material fact
exist on these two issues, the Court permitted the parties to move forward
with the litigation. A ruling that orders parties of a litigation to proceed
forward, is generally not a basis for an interlocutory appeal. 8
6
604 A.2d 390, 398 (Del. 1992).
7
Id.
8
Levinson, 385 A.2d at 720.
3
For the foregoing reasons, Air Base’s Application to Certify the
Interlocutory Appeal is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_____________________
Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr.
4
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.
