Aiken v. Town of Georgetown.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE RICHARD F. STOKES SUSSEX COU NTY C OUR THO USE JUDGE 1 THE CIRCLE, SUITE 2 GEORGETOWN, DE 19947 TELEPHONE (302) 856-5264 July 18, 2013 Edward C. Gill, Esquire P.O. Box 2112 Georgetown, DE 19947 Roger D. Landon, Esquire Lauren A. Cirrinicione, Esquire 1011 Centre Road No. 210 Wilmington, DE 19805 RE: June Aiken v. Town of Georgetown C.A. No. S13C-02-003 RFS Submitted: July 8, 2013 Decided: July 17, 2013 Defendant s Motion for Summary Judgment. Denied. Dear Counsel: Plaintiff June Aiken had a slip and fall within the limits of Defendant Town of Georgetown ( the Town ). Plaintiff sues the Town in negligence for failing to keep properly and maintain the Town s pavement. The Town s motion for summary judgment is based on its immunity from suit pursuant to the County and Municipal Tort Claims Act ( the Act ). Title 10 Del.C. § 4010--§ 4013. Plaintiff alleges that on July 21, 2011, she was a pedestrian in the Town on or around Railroad Avenue where it intersects with the railroad tracks. The Town Page 1 argues that it is immune under § 4011(b)(6) of the Act: (b) Notwithstanding § 4012 of this title, a governmental entity shall not be liable for any damage claim which results from: . . . . (6) Any defect, lack of repair or lack of sufficient railing in any highway, townway, sidewalk, parking area, causeway, bridge, airport runway or taxiway, including appurtenances necessary for the control of such ways including but not limited to street signs, traffic lights and controls, parking meters and guardrails. Plaintiff asserts that § 4011(b)(6) is inapplicable to the facts at bar. Instead, she relies on one of the exceptions to immunity listed in § 4012: A governmental entity shall be exposed to liability for its negligent acts or omissions causing property damage, bodily or death in the following instances: (2) In the construction, operation or maintenance of any public building or the appurtenances thereto, except as to historic sites or buildings, structures, facilities or equipment designed for use primarily by the public in connection with public outdoor recreation. Plaintiff argues that her accident occurred on an appurtenance to a public building, the Georgetown Train Station. However, in response to this Court s Order to the parties that the motion to dismiss to would be considered as a motion for summary judgment because of documents submitted outside the pleadings, Plaintiff filed information indicating that the Georgetown Train Station was purchased by the Historic Georgetown Association and is now used for a variety of meetings and events. The real problem here is that, contrary to Plaintiff s position, historic sites or buildings are cited in § 4012(2) as structures for which a town or municipality shall be not exposed to liability for its negligence, not one of the exceptions to immunity. Page 2 Further, because discovery has not taken place the available facts are sketchy. It is not clear where Plaintiff fell. It is not clear whether the Georgetown Train Station is a public building or a historic site pursuant to § 4012. Assuming without deciding that it is a public building, it is not clear that Plaintiff fell on an appurtenance to that building. Defendant s motion for summary judgment is premature and is therefore DENIED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Very truly yours, /s/ Richard F. Stokes Richard F. Stokes Original to Prothonotary Page 3
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.
