Hayford v. DART, et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY SHEILA HAYFORD, Plaintiff, v. DART and DELAWARE TRANSIT CORPORATION, Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : C.A. No: K14C-01-024 RBY Submitted: April 7, 2015 Decided: April 10, 2015 Upon Consideration of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment DENIED ORDER Sheila Hayford, Pro se. Douglas T. Walsh, Esquire, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, Delaware for Defendants. Young, J. Hayford v. Dart, et. al. C.A. No.: K14C-01-024 RBY April 10, 2015 DECISION By her Complaint filed on January 27, 2014, Sheila Hayford (“Plaintiff”) alleges she was injured, two years prior, while a passenger on a bus operated by DART (together with Delaware Transit Corporation, “Defendants”). Plaintiff seeks to recover damages against Defendants stemming from the injuries purportedly sustained as a result of unspecified negligence. As this litigation has progressed, this Court issued numerous scheduling deadlines, including one relating to the disclosure of expert witnesses. Initially, Plaintiff had until February 27, 2015, to reveal her experts. At Plaintiff’s request, the Court extended this time until March 13, 2015. Plaintiff failed to meet this extended deadline. As a result, Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on March 19, 2015, arguing that Plaintiff could not sustain her suit alleging bodily injuries, without the support of expert medical testimony.1 Albeit three weeks past due, on April 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed her expert disclosure statement, listing Dr. Andrew Robinson, a Board Certified Orthopedic Surgeon, and New Care Chiropractic care as her witnesses. Given this development, Defendants’ present Motion for Summary Judgment will be, for now, DENIED. This Order in no way hinders or prejudices any party in the pursuit of any Motion directed to or associated with Plaintiff’s “Complaint,” which, as it regards any claim of actionable conduct, states in its entirety: “I was a passenger on a Dart bus 1 See e.g., Rayfield v. Power, 840 A.2d 642 (Del. 2003) (“with a claim for bodily injuries, the causal connection between the defendant’s alleged negligent conduct and the plaintiff’s alleged injury must be proven by testimony of a competent medical expert”). 2 Hayford v. Dart, et. al. C.A. No.: K14C-01-024 RBY April 10, 2015 Route 113 and sustained injuries due to negligence of bus driver.” IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Robert B. Young J. RBY/lmc oc: Prothonotary cc: Counsel Ms. Sheila Hayford (via U.S. mail) Opinion Distribution 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.
