Alfred L. Baker v. East Coast Properties, Inc. C.A. No. N09C-11-144 MMJ Superior Court of Delaware November 15, 2011 Johnston, J. Plaintiff Alfred Baker (Baker) rented an apartment in Greenwood Acres Apartments (Greenwood Acres) from Defendant East Coast Properties, Inc. (East Coast). Baker brought suit, claiming that he sustained injuries as a result of negligence on the part of East Coast. Baker contends that East Coasts unannounced and unauthorized entry into his apartment triggered an audible self-installed alarm attached to his front door. According to Baker, the sound of the alarm startled him awake, causing him to get out of bed and subsequently fall as he attempted to get to the front door. East Coast moves for summary judgment against Baker, arguing that it was not reasonably foreseeable that East Coasts entry into Bakers apartment would result in Baker falling and sustaining injuries. East Coast further argues that even if its actions were neg- ligent, Bakers installation of the alarms constitutes an intervening and superseding cause....Factual Background The following facts are set forth in the light most favorable to Baker, as the non-moving party. Baker rented an apartment in Greenwood Acres from East Coast, owner and landlord of the apartment complex. Greenwood Acres provides housing spe- cifically for the elderly and those with ambulatory difficulties. Baker, himself, is legally blind and suf- fers from numerous health problems, including COPD, diabetes ... , prostate cancer, and low back pain. Baker has also been diagnosed with Parkin- sons disease. As a result of his Parkinsons disease, Baker exhibits ambulatory dysfunction which causes him to fall down frequently because his knees buckle. Since moving to Greenwood Acres in 2000, Baker claimed that maintenance personnel employed by East Coast repeatedly had entered his apartment without permission. During one of these unauthorized visits, Baker claimed that his cable box had been stolen. As a result of the numerous unauthorized entries into his apartment, Baker purchased and installed an audible motion-sensitive alarm to hang on the interior front doorknob. When activated, the alarm would sound only if the door was opened.... Therefore, according to Baker, he would only set the alarm if he was home so that he could be alerted when someone entered his apartment. On March 13, 2009, at approximately 9:00 a.m., Louis Desposito (Desposito), East Coasts mainte- nance man, arrived outside Bakers apartment. Desposito, who was accompanied by a fire technician from Simplex Grinnell, planned to conduct mainte- nance and inspections of the complexs fire suppres- sion system, including equipment in Bakers unit. Baker contends that he never received oral or written notice that maintenance personnel would need to access his unit. The parties dispute whether Desposito knocked on the door or rang the door bell before using the master key to enter Bakers unit. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Baker, however, the Court will assume that Despositos entry in Bakers apartment was unannounced and unauthorized. As Desposito unlocked Bakers front door and opened it, the alarms immediately sounded.... According to Baker, he was startled awake by the sound of the alarm and jumped out of bed to see who was in his apartment. Baker took about three steps and fell to the ground when his legs gave way. As a result of the fall, Baker claimed to have sustained head and neck injuries. Baker managed to get back on his feet and proceeded to the front door to see who was attempting to enter his apartment.... Discussion Common-Law Negligence In order to establish a prima facie case of negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendants negligent act or omission breached a duty of care owed to plaintiff in a way that proximately caused plaintiff injury.... Sum- mary judgment can be appropriate in a negligence action if [the] [p]laintiff[] fail[s] to establish the elements of negligence by a preponderance of the evidence.... Here, in determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, the Courts inquiry must focus on two issues: (1) whether East Coast breached any duty it owed to Baker; and (2) if so, whether its breach was the proximate cause of Bakers injuries. Duty and Breach Under Delaware law, ones duty of care is measured in terms of reasonableness.... One has a duty to act as a reasonably prudent person would act.... In defining the parameters of ones duty, the Court has incorporated the principle of foreseeability.... The duty encompasses protecting against reasonably foreseeable events.... Here, the relevant inquiry is whether it was rea- sonably foreseeable that East Coasts conductthat is, East Coasts allegedly unauthorized and unannounced entry into Bakers apartmentwould result in Bakers injuries. Absent a finding that such a result was rea- sonably foreseeable, East Coast cannot be said to have breached any duty to Baker under the circumstances. East Coast argues that it was not reasonably fore- seeable that Despositos knocking on the door and ring- ing [Bakers] doorbell for several minutes and opening his door yelling maintenance, would result in Bakers self- installed alarms going off, startling him awake, resulting in his attempt to walk when he was not physically capable to do so. Therefore, East Coast contends that it owed no duty to Baker under these circumstances. Baker disputes East Coasts account of events, claiming that Desposito neither knocked on the door nor rang the doorbell. Instead, Baker claims that with- out authorization or announcement, Desposito entered Bakers apartment, triggered the alarm and caused injury by startling Baker. According to Baker, because East Coast was aware of his ambulatory diffi- culties as well as his prior complaints regarding unau- thorized intrusions into his apartment, it was reasonably foreseeable that Baker may be injured due to East Coasts unannounced entry. Intervening and Superseding Causation Although a question of fact exists as to the manner of East Coasts entry into Bakers apartment, the Court need not resolve this factual dispute. Even if the Court were to find that East Coasts entry was unauthorized and unannounced, Baker has failed to establish that the injuries he sustained were proximately caused by East Coasts conduct. Delaware applies the traditional but for defini- tion of proximate cause.... Proximate cause is that which brings about or produces, or helps to bring about or produce the injury and damage, and but for which the injury would not have occurred.... In other words, proximate cause exists if a natural and contin- uous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the result would not have occurred.... The mere occurrence of an intervening cause, however, does not automatically relieve the original tortfeasor of liability.... In determining whether the chain of causation stemming from the original tortious conduct is broken, the relevant inquiry is whether the intervening act was reasonably foreseen or reasonably anticipated by the original tortfeasor.... If the inter- vening act was not reasonably foreseeable, then the act constitutes a superseding cause and the initial tortfeasor is relieved of liability.... East Coast argues that Bakers actions constitute an intervening cause that supersedes any alleged neg- ligent conduct by East Coast. According to East Coast, Bakers installation of the alarm on his front door was neither anticipated nor reasonably foreseeable by East Coast. Bakers own conduct, East Coast contends, was the sole proximate cause of Bakers injuries. In response, Baker claims that East Coasts negligencethat is, East Coasts unauthorized and unannounced entry into his apartmentwas the proximate cause of his injuries. At his deposition, Baker acknowledged that the sole reason he fell was because he was startled out of bed by the sound of the alarm. The alarm operated precisely as Baker intended. When the door opened, the alarm sounded. According to Baker, when the alarm sounded, it woke [him] up and startled [him]. In response to the sound of the alarm, Baker testified that he jumped out of bed, made about three steps and fell because his legs gave way. The Court finds that Bakers act of installing the alarm on the front door was neither reasonably fore- seeable nor reasonably anticipated by East Coast. Baker testified that he saw no reason to inform East Coast that he had installed the alarm on the front door. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Baker, the Court finds that the sounding of the alarm constitutes an intervening cause which relieves East Coast of liability. While it is undisputed that the alarm would not have sounded but for East Coasts entry into the apartment, it was the audible sound emitted from the alarm that directly caused Bakers injuries. It was not reasonably foreseeable that Baker would install a device that would cause him to panic to such an extent that he would forget that he was unable to walk without assistance. Therefore, the causal chain of lia- bility stemming from any negligence on behalf of East Coast was effectively broken by Bakers intervening and superseding act. Comparative Negligence Even absent the intervening and superseding cause, the Court finds that Bakers own contributory negligence bars his recovery. Under Delawares comparative negli- gence law, a plaintiff cannot recover if he acted more negligently than the defendant.... In other words, if the plaintiffs contributory negligence is 51% or greater, it is an absolute bar to recovery according to the Delaware statute.... However, if the plaintiffs contributory negligence is 50% or less, the plaintiff is permitted to recover, although the recovery is reduced proportionally.... Summary judgment may be granted in favor [of] the defendant if the trial judge determines that no reasonable juror could find that the plaintiffs negligence did not exceed the defendants.... At his deposition, Baker acknowledged that his ambulatory dysfunction, a side effect of his Parkinsons disease, posed significant problems with his ability to stand and walk. According to Baker, he would fall fre- quently as a result of his condition. Baker was keenly aware of the physical limitations caused by his Parkinsons. The Court finds, as a matter of law based on un- disputed facts, that Bakers contributory negligence installing the alarm without notice to East Coast, which caused him to jump up out of bed and take three steps despite the fact that he suffered from physical limitations which prevented him from walking without assistanceis greater than any negligence allegedly committed by East Coast. Conclusion Baker has failed to establish a prima facie case of negli- gence on the part of East Coast. Having considered the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the Court finds that the alarm, installed by Baker, constitutes an intervening and superseding cause which relieves East Coast of liability. The Court is cognizant of the fact that but for East Coasts entry into the apart- ment, the alarm would not have been triggered. How- ever, the Court finds, as Baker conceded, that the sound emitted from the self-installed alarm (of which East Coast had no notice) directly caused Bakers injuries. Additionally, the Court finds as a matter of law based on undisputed facts, that Bakers contributory negligence installing the alarm and attempting to walk without assistance despite his physical limitationsexceeds any negligence of East Coast. Therefore, pursuant to Delawares comparative negligence statute, Baker is barred from recovery. THEREFORE, East Coasts Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED.... IT IS SO ORDERED. The Honorable Mary M. Johnston

Case Questions

1. Do you agree with the court with respect to proximate causation in this case?

2.Why did the court rule in favor of the defendant?

3. Based on what you have read, do you agree with the court that no reasonable juror could find that the defendant was more negligent than the plaintiff?