Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Janess v. Ramirez

Superior Court of Delaware, Kent

June 22, 2017

DEBRA LYNN JANESS and RAYMOND JANESS, Plaintiffs,
v.
ENEMIAS M. RAMIREZ, TODD A BURGER, and TODD A. BURGER d/b/a GREEN BLADE IRRIGATION & TURF CARE, LLC, Defendants.

          Submitted: April 7, 2017

         Upon Defendant Burger's Motion for Summary Judgment. Denied.

          Michael J. Malkiewicz, Esquire of Barros McNamara Malkiewicz & Taylor, P.A., Dover, Delaware; attorneys for Plaintiffs.

          David C. Malatesta, Jr., Esquire and Aman K. Sharma, Esquire of Kent & McBride, P.C., Wilmington, Delaware; attorneys for Defendant Todd A. Burger, individually and d/b/a Green Blade Irrigation & Turf Care, LLC.

          ORDER

          William L. Witham. Jr. Resident Judge.

         Before the Court are a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Todd Burger and Todd Burger d/b/a/ Green Blade Irrigation & Turf Care, LLC (collectively "Burger") and a response in opposition filed by Plaintiffs Debra and Raymond Janess ("the Plaintiffs"). After considering the motion and response, it appears that the motion must be denied.

         FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         This lawsuit arises out of a collision that is alleged to have occurred on Saulsbury Road just north of West North Street in Dover, Delaware. The collision occurred on Saturday, September 7, 2013, around 9:15 p.m. Employee Ramirez ("Ramirez") was driving a truck owned by Green Blade Irrigation & Turf Care, LLC, his employer, when he struck Debra Janess' vehicle from the rear. Mrs. Janess' vehicle had been stopped for a red light in the left turn lane.

         According to documents provided by Burger, Ramirez was off the clock at the time of the collision and was neither his agent nor a permissive operator of his company's truck. Ramirez was likewise neither a named insured nor an additional insured on the insurance policy that covered the truck. Burger also provided a document purporting to be a transcript of a recorded phone call with Ramirez, in which Ramirez stated he did not have permission to use the truck.

         According to an affidavit provided by the Plaintiffs, however, Ramirez and his passenger were seen at the scene of the collision wearing clothes that were covered with dirt and soil.

         The suit alleges negligence and recklessness by Ramirez and, under a theory of respondeat superior, by Burger. Respondeat superior liability is premised on the allegation that Ramirez was Burger's agent at the time of the collision.

         Burger moved for summary judgment, which the Plaintiffs opposed. This is the Court's decision on Burger's motion.

         THE PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

         Burger argues that he is entitled to summary judgment on the ground that Ramirez was not his agent, servant, or employee because he had no implied or express permission to use the truck that night. He bases his argument on (1) the fact that Ramirez was not a named or additional insured on the auto policy, (2) Burger's own affidavit that Ramirez was not his agent, (3) a transcribed phone call in which Ramirez allegedly admitted he was not allowed to use the vehicle and was going to Walmart to go shopping, and (4) a purported timesheet ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.