Delaware Supreme Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Slip-and-Fall Case Based on Contradicted Plaintiff Testimony

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of a shopping center owner and its snow removal contractor, holding that a plaintiff cannot rely on self-contradictory testimony—especially when refuted by objective evidence—to survive summary judgment.

In this case, the plaintiff alleged that he slipped on black ice in a parking lot and testified that snow, ice, and active plowing were present. The defendants presented maintenance records showing prior treatment, meteorological data confirming no precipitation after that treatment, and surveillance footage establishing that the lot was clear and dry with no snow removal activity at the time of the incident.

Relying on Ridgeway v. Acme Markets, Inc., the court reiterated that defendants must take reasonable steps to address snow and ice, but once they present evidence of reasonable care, the burden shifts to the plaintiff. The court found that the defendants met that burden, while the plaintiff failed to create a genuine issue of material fact, relying only on inconsistent testimony directly contradicted by video evidence.

This decision reinforces a strong path to summary judgment in winter slip-and-fall cases where defendants can pair documentation with objective evidence to negate alleged hazardous conditions.