 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Moore v. SOM3/31/2005
Submitted: February 14, 2005
On Defendant's Motion Pursuant to Rule 50(b) For Judgment as a Matter of Law or In The Alternative For a New Trial Pursuant to Rule 59. DENIED.
On Plaintiff's Motion for Costs. GRANTED IN PART.
Dear Counsel
The defendant has filed a Rule 50(b) motion seeking a reversal of the jury's verdict or in the alternative for a new trial. Under Rule 50, the Court is required to consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and determine whether the facts are sufficient for a reasonable jury to find in the plaintiff's favor. Put another way, are the facts such that no reasonable juror could find in favor of the plaintiff. Under Rule 59, the trial court, while considering all of the evidence presented, may not set aside the jury's verdict unless the evidence weighs so heavily against the jury verdict that a reasonable jury could not have reached the result and to allow the decision to remain would be a miscarriage of justice. In neither case may the Court substitute its own judgment of the facts or simply reverse because it disagrees with the verdict. Under these standards, the Court finds the defendant's motions should be denied.
On the evening of December 1, 2000, the plaintiff was assaulted in the parking lot of the business establishment owned and operated by the defendant. There is really no dispute that this business operates in a relatively poor, high crime area of the county located just south of the city of Wilmington. It also appears from the testimony that this shopping center, particularly in the area of the defendant's liquor store, was an area of regular drug activity and there was significant loitering and drinking outside of the establishment. The safety concerns relating to its location are evidenced by the bulletproof encasement of the liquor store that required customers to come to a window and order alcohol which then would be retrieved by the employee and handed through an opening in the bulletproof window to the customer upon payment. In addition, the liquor store maintained a weapon for protection and it appears the defendant was previously made aware of the proliferation of illegal activity outside of its premises. The Court finds the jury could have easily questioned the credibility of the defendant's owners when they testified that they knew of very little illegal activity and when it was brought to their attention they had reacted to it either by chasing away the participants or calling the police. If the jury found this testimony not to be credible, it could equally have found that the activity was simply tolerated by the defendant for the economic benefit it received from the crowd around the store unless such activity got out of hand.
It is within this atmosphere that the plaintiff came to buy alcohol and was subsequently assaulted. While the Court questions whether the plaintiff is totally an innocent victim of this assaultive behavior, this alone does not relieve the defendant of liability. It would be folly to argue, as the defendant attempts to do, that it was "unaware" of the dangerous atmosphere outside its premises. A business owner cannot put his head in the sand (or, as in this case, lock himself behind bulletproof glass) and deny knowledge of this activity. Such a statement is simply one of convenience and is not credible. The defendant has simply made a business judgment, weighing the economic benefits of the shopping center activity versus the economic risk if an individual is harmed.
The Court agrees that Section 344 of the Restatement of Torts (2) has been adopted by the Delaware Supreme Court and establishes the standard for liability of busi
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.
|
|