Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Estate of Jean-Claudie Zabie v. Pramick
Citation: Not availableDocket: N20C-04-006 DJB
Court: Superior Court of Delaware; February 20, 2023; Delaware; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Defendant Loretta Pramick's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case against the Estate of Jean-Claude Zabie was denied by the Superior Court of Delaware on February 21, 2023. The incident occurred on April 5, 2018, when Pramick, while merging onto I-95, collided with Zabie's vehicle, which was stopped in the merge lane. The civil action was initiated on April 1, 2020, but it was revealed that Zabie had died three months prior, leading to the establishment of his Estate in April 2022. Defendant's motion for summary judgment, filed on November 23, 2022, argued that Plaintiff could not provide evidence to contradict her account of the event, as the only other witness, Defendant's husband, had also passed away. The Court noted that summary judgment requires the moving party to demonstrate no genuine issues of material fact exist, shifting the burden to the opposing party if they succeed. Plaintiff countered with three arguments: 1) a jury might find Defendant's testimony implausible; 2) even if her testimony is accepted, it raises material factual questions; and 3) a jury could determine Defendant was negligent based on her statements. The Court emphasized that questions of negligence are typically for a jury unless there is a complete failure to prove an essential element of the case, indicating that the presence of disputed facts warranted a denial of the motion. Defendant's request for summary judgment is denied as the case, while somewhat similar to Coale v. Rowlands, is distinguishable. In Coale, the Delaware Supreme Court upheld the summary judgment for a defendant-driver, determining no negligence was present due to uncontested facts. The current case differs as there are unresolved factual issues regarding the Plaintiff vehicle's position at the time of the crash and the Defendant's potential negligence in failing to see the Plaintiff vehicle earlier. Unlike Coale, where the decedent's negligence was undisputed, this case leaves the issue of negligence open for jury determination. The ruling does not indicate the likelihood of the Plaintiff's success at trial, but emphasizes that summary judgment is not appropriate at this stage. The court orders the denial of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.