 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fritz v. Yeager2/12/2002
Submitted: January 29, 2002
This is an appeal from a Superior Court ruling, during trial, granting judgment in favor of appellee/defendant below William Yeager ("Yeager") in a personal injury action brought by appellant/plaintiff below John Fritz ("Fritz"). Fritz sought damages for a hand injury that occurred while he was operating Yeager's table saw, on Yeager's premises, under a construction contract. After closing arguments but before submission to the jury, the Superior Court granted Yeager's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the ground that Yeager did not owe a duty to Fritz based on Restatement (Second) Torts ยง 392 and this Court's decision in Farm Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Perdue, Inc., 608 A.2d 726 (Del. 1990). The court cited, as additional support, that the doctrine of assumption of the risk also barred Fritz' recovery. Fritz argues that the Superior Court erred in holding that Yeager owed him no duty, as a matter of law, and that the case should have been submitted to the jury for a determination of liability based on comparative negligence.
I.
The relationship between the parties began in the spring of 1997, when Yeager hired Fritz to renovate a house Yeager had recently purchased in Milford, Delaware. Yeager chose Fritz for the job because Fritz had performed renovation work for him years earlier and Yeager respected his construction ability. Fritz has a college degree in industrial education and had been an industrial arts, or shop, teacher for twenty-five years before retiring. Throughout his teaching career, Fritz often performed construction work in the summer months.
The renovation of the Milford property was conducted under Yeager's general supervision, and Yeager provided all the materials and tools necessary for the job , including a table saw. On October 28, 1997, Fritz was operating the table saw provided by Yeager, on Yeager's property, when his hand slipped into contact with the blade, causing him serious physical injury .
It is undisputed that, at the time of the accident, the table saw's safety guard was not in place and, had it been, the accident would not have occurred. Yeager acknowledged that he removed the saw's safety guard sometime prior to beginning work on the Milford property. Fritz, however, was aware that the guard was not in place, and had even expressed concern about the safety of the saw without the guard. Yeager told Fritz that the guard was in the barn, but did not locate it for him, nor did Fritz attempt to locate the guard. Prior to the accident, Fritz had used the saw at least two times without having the guard in place. Additionally, the particular cut Fritz was performing when the accident occurred (a "cross cut") could have been accomplished by using a miter saw, which had a safety guard in place, and was located on the premises.
II.
The standard of review in an appeal from a Superior Court's ruling upon a motion for directed verdict is whether the evidence and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, taken in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, raise an issue of material fact for consideration by the jury. Russell v. Kanaga, 571 A.2d 724, 731 (Del. 1990). In a tort action, however, it is the plaintiff's burden to establish a prima facie basis for recovery as to all elements of his claim. Farm Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Perdue, Inc., 608 A.2d 726 (Del. 1992).
In order to be held liable in negligence, a defendant must have been under a legal obligation -- a duty -- to protect the plaintiff from the risk of harm which caused his injuries. Bryant v. Delmarva Power & Light Co., 1995 WL 653987, *2 (Del. Super. 1995). Whether a duty exi
Page 1 2 Delaware Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|