Storm v. NSL Rockland Place, LLC
Delaware Superior Court
898 A.2d 874 (2005)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Paul Storm (plaintiff) was admitted to NSL Rockland Place (Rockland) (defendant), an assisted-living facility (ALF), for rehabilitative care. Paul suffered from alcoholism and required mobility assistance to avoid falls. Prior to admission, Paul signed a Residency Agreement with Rockland stating that Paul assumed the risk of injury while residing at Rockland. Paul resided at Rockland for approximately two weeks, during which he repeatedly left Rockland’s facilities to obtain alcohol and returned severely intoxicated. Paul also refused meals, medications, and treatments. On February 9, 2002, Paul refused to attend breakfast and reportedly ordered staff to leave him alone. At dinner time, Rockland staff went to Paul’s room to collect him, but Paul did not respond. Rockland staff found Paul unconscious on the floor, having apparently fallen while alone in his room all day. Paul sustained a severe traumatic brain injury. Paul’s wife, Joann Storm (plaintiff), sued Rockland for medical negligence. Rockland moved for summary judgment and raised the affirmative defense of primary assumption of risk, arguing that Rockland was not liable for Paul’s injuries because Paul signed the liability waiver in the residency agreement. Rockland also raised an alternative defense of secondary assumption of risk, arguing that Paul’s actions contributed to his own injury and that he should be comparatively liable. Joann challenged, arguing that Rockland could not raise the primary-assumption-of-risk affirmative defense because ALFs had a statutory duty of care that could not be waived.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Slights, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.