Supreme Court of Delaware

In a negligence action involving asbestos exposure, trial court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff did not present her new theory of defendant's misfeasance to the trial court and thus is precluded on appeal from claiming that the court erred in analyzing the summary judgment motion in terms of nonfeasance instead of misfeasance; and 2) defendant owed no duty of care to plaintiff as they had no legally significant relationship.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/04/2009
• Published 03/04/2009

Judges

• STEELE, Chief Justice., STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices constituting the court en banc.

Court

• Supreme Court of Delaware

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Thomas C. Crumplar (argued), Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware for appellant., John C. Phillips, Jr., Phillips, Goldman & Spence, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware as amici curiae.


• For Appellees:
  
• Mark L. Reardon and Krista Reale Samis (argued), Elzufon Austin Reardon Tarlov & Mondell, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware;  and, John C. Phillips Jr. and David A. Bilson, Phillips, Goldman & Spence, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware for appellee.