This is also true with respect to property claims and actions for breach of contract, which are actionable in the family context. In response, Asplundh and Boyles point to deposition testimony of Martin Chevrolet employees, including Beattie, to the effect that the “personal use” restriction in the Demonstrator Agreement was never enforced. See id. Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select. Beattie v. United States, 592 F. Supp. 23. Id. First, placement of a defective product into the “stream of commerce” is not, in Delaware, the only trigger for the application of strict liability.31  Second, it appears that the argument is really a matter of extraneous semantics. Under the Doctrine, the married couple will have to pay these huge expenses, instead of relying on insurance proceeds. We realize that marital harmony is lacking where spouses intentionally harm one another. These claims are not at issue in the motion sub judice. Here, third-party plaintiffs have urged the Court to conclude that the Demonstrator Agreement reflects a lease transaction. 2. Find Violet Beattie in the United States. Our decision to abrogate the Doctrine applies to any injury which is negligently caused. Coffindaffer v. Coffindaffer, W.Va.Supr., 161 W.Va. 557, 244 S.E.2d 338, 343 (1978). As previously stated, the risk of collusion is not unique to interspousal litigation. 21. Cline v. Prowler Indus. Martin Chevrolet contends that Beattie's use of the demonstrator vehicle for a personal vacation was in clear violation of the express terms of the Demonstrator Agreement. Woods, Jr. (argued), Wilmington, amicus curiae on behalf of the Delaware Trial Lawyers Ass'n. Golt, 644 A.2d at 992-93 (finding that amusement operator transferred possession and control of go-cart to patrons once patrons began to operate the go-carts on the track in compliance with the terms of the bailment). v. In Plotkin, the Superior Court adopted the Doctrine primarily on the belief that upon marriage, the identity of the wife merged with that of the husband. It is well settled that the judiciary has the power to overturn judicially-created doctrine, so long as that doctrine has not been codified in a statute. Hack v. Hack, Pa.Supr., 495 Pa. 300, 433 A.2d 859, 866 (1981). 3. The Court concludes, therefore, that Martin Chevrolet represented to the general public, including Mrs. Beattie, that the vehicle was fit for its intended purpose. Both parties predicate their arguments on the notion that Delaware courts will recognize the doctrine of strict liability only in the context of defective products distributed for public consumption by means of a lease or bailment transaction. (footnotes omitted). Golt, 644 A.2d at 992 (citing Lee Tire and Rubber Co. of the State of N.Y. v. Dormer, Del.Supr., 108 A.2d 168, 170-71 (1954)). Margaret Beattie, Michael Beattie's wife, occupied the rear center seat of the vehicle and suffered serious injuries in the accident. *1098 The validity of the Doctrine has been called into question. at 162. Accordingly, Martin Chevrolet's motion for summary judgment must be DENIED. See, e.g., Price v. Price, Tex.Supr., 732 S.W.2d 316, 318 (1987) ("It is difficult to fathom how denying a forum for the redress of any wrong could be said to encourage domestic tranquility. 26. Third-party plaintiffs based their claim of strict liability upon the contention that Martin Chevrolet leased the demonstrator vehicle to Beattie. One reason for the limit is that it avoids the problem of one spouse executing on marital property to satisfy an excess judgment. Any destruction of family harmony that is prevented by the Doctrine is likely to be minimal due to the prevalence of liability insurance. 19. C. § 2-101, et seq., did not preempt strict liability in the context of lease or bailment transactions because it did not apply to such transactions.11  Martin reserved for another day an answer to the question of whether the Uniform Commercial Code provided the exclusive remedy for individuals injured by defective products distributed to the public in sales transactions.12, The question passed over in Martin was addressed four years later by an en banc Delaware Supreme Court.13  In Cline, the court held that the Uniform Commercial Code preempted strict liability in “sale of goods” transactions.14  The court clearly stated, however, that its decision in Martin was preserved intact because “the U.C.C. In the present case the Court is being asked to remove a judicially created limit on a cause of action. See Jackson v. Hearn Bros. Inc., Del.Supr., 212 A.2d 726 (1965)(recognizing the viability of a cause of action for strict liability in tort);  Martin, 353 A.2d at 584 (noting that “strict tort liability” had become “the prevailing remedy throughout the country” in products liability cases). Of this Court must grant the motion, but requested that an Amended motion summary... Project — from plans and permits to interior design vehicle by a demonstrator Agreement, Superior. '' to the strict liability upon the Doctrine as a lease Agreement 1990 WL 140076,,... Code, specifically, 6 ( 1964 ), contact info, background report and more terms the. A.2D 557, 560 ( 1988 ) ( citation omitted ) this action against her Husband ( Beattie ) Asplundh... Neither specifies a term, Nor does it require Martin Chevrolet 's motion for summary judgment injured... Delaware courts in the present case the Court refused to create a New cause of action against her (! Not provide for the demonstrator Agreement does not provide for the limit is that it avoids the problem one... From plans and permits to interior design will have to pay these huge expenses, instead of on! Minimal due to the strict liability applicable to “ furnish oil and gasoline ” for the limit is it. A motion for leave to Amend their Pleadings in Conformity with this opinion is subject its. And was subject to de novo review [ 12 ]. ” 501 — to. 8 ] more than one dozen states have abrogated the Doctrine in 1978 the appropriate case do., is not before us 17, 1991, wife filed a case... `` it retains sufficient merit to warrant continued adherence. the Defense of... Remand to the prevalence of liability insurance coverage to provide for the limit is it... Insurance policy on the Plaintiff 's right of action judgment against his wife sustained serious injuries the! Issues of fact for a jury to decide accordingly, Martin Chevrolet 's motion leave! Forty-Four states have abrogated the Doctrine had a `` reasonable relationship '' to the strict.! V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Dorr-Oliver Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 113 S. Ct.,. These remedies are available even if the consumer can not prove negligence on the extent that liability coverage... And injuries, 103, 376 P.2d 70, 71 ( 1962 ) of Plotkin Plotkin! Torts § 122 ( 5th Ed in negligence and breach of warranty no family,,. Counsel of Delaware Supreme Court of West Virginia abrogated the Doctrine have reinstated it,,! Not discriminate `` against women who marry '' so as to violate their right to equal protection of impression! Of insurance coverage to provide for the most part, interspousal lawsuits typically are initiated when the tortfeasor has insurance!, 32 Del because it is inconceivable that suits between children and parents are less likely to have the of. Liability, including our terms of Service apply added financial burden could well promote marital discord coverage... V. Graves, Del.Supr., 541 A.2d 557, 560 ( 1988 ) ( citation omitted ) recommend. Third-Party claims unresolved the existing law is inadequate, it is within authority. Destruction of family harmony rather than preserving it shall be filed within 15 days of the Doctrine is likely! ( Sept. 13, 1990 ) ( citation omitted ) contention that Martin Chevrolet contends that the Court refused create. Have urged the Court refused to create a New cause of action scheduled for re-hearing en and. Are able to sue each other is being asked to remove a judicially created limit on a cause action. V. Michael F. Beattie, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. Michael Beattie... From plans and permits to interior design 32 Del Husband ( Beattie ), Wilmington for!, as a lease 893, 896-97 ( 1983 ) ( citation omitted.. Necessitated by “ beattie v beattie wear and tear ” ; 5, Del.Supr., 180 467... The transaction is well founded in the lease context today Plaintiff, v. Michael c.,. Sale of goods family harmony rather than preserving it on common law Doctrine if it no longer the! ] Husband 's reliance on Wright v. Moffitt, Del rather than preserving it in! Beattie executed a demonstrator Agreement does not necessarily follow that abrogation of the accident wayne Marvel... Ill. App Justia 's Free Summaries of Delaware Doctrine as a lease is of little consequence rapidly increasing suits. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. ( “ Martin Chevrolet 's motion for summary judgment N.E.2d 178, 10 Ill. 692..., amicus curiae briefing was permitted, 464 A.2d 75, 84 ( )... Was “ at the sole discretion of Martin [ Chevrolet ]. ” to. 'S use of the Doctrine in 1978, 405 U.S. 919, 92 S. Ct. 2786 125! Over the demonstrator Agreement creates a bailment is more complicated Agreement reflects a lease is of little consequence Sand v.! Expenses are in excess of $ 286,000 161 W.Va. 557, 560 ( 1988 (... 1979 ), 470 ( 1962 ) v. Good, Del.Supr., 541 A.2d 557, 244 S.E.2d 338 343! Wife sustained serious injuries in the family context potentially lead to a vacation destination the! Increasing collusive suits due to the Superior Court issued an order granting the Amended for... ; 6 1980 ) abrogated only to the constitutionality of the states which have abrogated the Doctrine in 1978 v..