Submitted: April 22, 2017
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment DENIED
L. Rocanelli, Judge
a personal injury action arising from an automobile accident
on June 24, 2014. On March 24, 2017, Defendants filed the
Motion for Summary Judgment that is currently before the
Court. Defendants contend that this Court should award
judgment as a matter of law in favor of Defendants because
Plaintiff is unable to meet her burden of proof for the
essential element of causation.
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
judgment as a matter of law." 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. At the motion for summary judgment phase,
the Court must view the facts "in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party."
under Delaware's comparative negligence statute the
determination of the respective degrees of negligence
attributable to the parties almost always presents a
question of fact for the jury." The Court does
not find that this case presents the rare exception of a
negligence case that is susceptible to summary
adjudication. It is not this Court's role to weigh
evidence or resolve factual conflicts arising from pretrial
submissions. Rather, "if a rational trier of fact
could find any material fact that would favor the non-moving
party in a determinative way . . ., summary judgment is
consideration of Defendants' Motion and Plaintiffs
opposition thereto; the facts, arguments, and legal
authorities set forth by the parties; the Superior Court
Civil Rules; and the entire record in this case, the Court
hereby finds that, viewing the evidence and drawing all
reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the
non-moving party, there are genuine issues of material fact
in dispute. Accordingly, judgment as a matter of law is
THEREFORE, this 26th day of April, 2017,
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56(c).
 Moore v. Sizemore, 405 A.2d
679, 680-81(Del. 1979).
 Brozka v. Olson, 668 A.2d
1355, 1364 (Del. 1995).
Helm v. 206 Mass. Ave., LLC,
107 A.3d 1074, 1081 (Del. 2014) (emphasis in original)
(citing Trievel v. Sabo, 714 A.2d 742, ...