 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Eby v. Thompson2/3/2005
Date Submitted: January 27, 2005
Dear Counsel
This is the Court's decision regarding Norfolk Southern Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment as to the punitive damages claim by Plaintiffs, Jeanette and Deborah Eby, Cynthia Adamire and the Estate of William L. Eby. For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.
According to Superior Court Civil Rule 56(c) summary judgment should be granted "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." The Court must view the record in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, and if it finds that there are no material issues of fact therein, it may grant a motion for summary judgment. The burden is first on the moving party to show that there are no material issues of fact. The burden then shifts to the non-moving party to demonstrate what material issues of fact remain.
On June 29, 2003, in Seaford, Delaware, a collision occurred between a motor vehicle driven by the decedent, William Eby, and a stump grinder which broke loose from a vehicle driven by defendant Steven J. Thompson. The stump grinder separated from Mr. Thompson's vehicle just after the truck passed over a set of railroad tracks owned and operated by Norfolk Southern Corporation. The crossing traverses Route 20 just west of the City of Seaford. Mr. Eby was killed in the accident and his wife, Jeanette, was injured. The Plaintiffs, Jeanette Eby, Deborah Eby, Cynthia Adamire and the Estate of William Eby instituted a personal injury and wrongful death suit against several parties. The Defendants include Steven Thompson, Al Gove, Al's Affordable Tree Care, Rental Equipment Center, Inc., Croft Trailer Supply, Inc., and Norfolk Southern Corporation.
Norfolk Southern Corporation (hereinafter "Norfolk") filed this Motion for Summary Judgment in response to Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages against it. The Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the motor vehicle accident was caused by Norfolk's failure to properly maintain and repair potholes in the railroad ties and tracks involved in the accident. The police report filed after the accident described the pothole as:
damage in the bed of the railroad track on the south edge of the roadway, north of the white fog line, between the rails of the track. The damage was almost square in shape. The damage measured 1'2" by 1'2" at its largest points. The narrowest width measured 7 and a half inches in length. It measured two and three quarter inches in depth. I watched traffic crossing the tracks on separate occasions, but never observed any eastbound traffic come close to the damaged portion of the railroad track. Vehicles observed ranged from commercial tractor-trailers to compact cars. The center of the damage was located 1'6" north of the south edge of the roadway and 24'6" east of the Reference Point. There was no evidence located at the scene to indicate this occurred as a result of the collision and appears to have been pre-existing damage.
Based on this damage and Norfolk's preexisting knowledge of it, Plaintiffs included a claim for punitive damages based on Norfolk's alleged failure to maintain a safe crossing.
Discovery yielded considerable information about Norfolk's oversight and maintenance of the crossing at issue. Roger Beavers, a Norfolk employee, was responsible for a monthly inspection of the crossing. Prior to the accident, Mr. Beavers noticed the damage on two monthly visits and reported the problem to his supervisor, Steven Carpenter. Mr.
Page 1 2 3 Delaware Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|