Mills v. J.E.M. Enterprises, Inc. v. Harvey Hanna & Associates, Inc.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
MICHAEL MILLS, )
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
) C.A. No. N14C-01-073 ALR
J.E.M. ENTERPRISES, Inc., )
Defendant and )
Third-Party Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
HARVEY HANNA & )
ASSOCIATES, Inc., )
Defendant and )
Third-Party Defendant. )
Submitted: April 21, 2015
Decided: April 28, 2015
Upon Defendant Harvey Hanna & Associates, Inc.’s
Motion for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff
DENIED
Upon Third-Party Defendant Harvey Hanna & Associates, Inc.’s
Motion for Summary Judgment Against Third-Party Plaintiff
DENIED
Defendant/Third Party Defendant Harvey Hanna & Associates, Inc.
(“Harvey Hanna”) seeks entry of summary judgment against Plaintiff, Michael
Mills. Harvey Hanna also seeks entry of judgment against Third-Party Plaintiff,
J.E.M. Enterprises, Inc. (“JEM”). Both motions are opposed.
Upon consideration of Harvey Hanna’s Motions for Summary Judgment, the
Court makes the following findings:
1. This lawsuit involves allegations arising from a slip and fall on July 2,
2012. Plaintiff claims he was injured when he slipped on a wet floor in a restroom
located in the lobby/waiting area of the Social Security Administration’s offices at
920 W. Basin Road, New Castle, Delaware (“Property”). Plaintiff was a business
invitee.
2. The Property is owned by a non-party, Commons Boulevard, LLP
(“Property Owner”). Social Security Administration, also a non-party, leases
commercial space at the Property from the Property Owner.
3. Harvey Hanna is the managing agent for the Property Owner.
4. JEM was responsible for cleaning services at the Property, including
cleaning the restrooms.
5. Plaintiff claims that Harvey Hanna had a contract with JEM for
cleaning services at the Property. Harvey Hanna claims that it does not have a
contractual or other business relationship with JEM. Rather, according to Harvey
Hanna, JEM was retained by the Property Owner. JEM emphasizes that this is a
lawsuit alleging negligence and not alleging breach of contract. JEM also asserts
that, as managing agent for the Property Owner, Harvey Hanna had a duty to
inspect the work of subcontractors such as JEM. Accordingly, there are genuine
2
issues as to material facts.
6. The Court may grant summary judgment only where the moving party
can “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.” 1 The moving party bears the
initial burden of proof, and once that is met, the burden shifts to the non-moving
party to show that a material issue of fact exists. 2 At the motion for summary
judgment phase, the Court must view the facts “in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party.” 3
NOW, THEREFORE, the Motions for Summary Judgment by
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Harvey Hanna & Associates, Inc. against
Plaintiff and Third-Party Plaintiff are hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of April, 2015.
Andrea L. Rocanelli
_______________________________
The Honorable Andrea L. Rocanelli
1
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56.
2
Moore v. Sizemore, 405 A.2d 679, 680-81 (Del. 1979).
3
Brzoska v. Olson, 668 A.2d 1355, 1364 (Del. 1995).
3