## Facts

- A motor-vehicle collision occurred in which Grace Outten’s vehicle struck Val Cunningham’s vehicle.
- In a prior traffic prosecution arising from the same incident, Outten was found guilty of inattentive driving under 21 Del. C. § 4176(b).
- Cunningham later filed a civil negligence action in Delaware Superior Court, alleging Outten’s negligent driving caused his injuries.
- After discovery, Cunningham moved for partial summary judgment on liability, asserting the traffic conviction conclusively established negligence and liability through collateral estoppel and/or negligence per se.
- Outten opposed, arguing the conviction did not resolve civil negligence, causation, or comparative fault and that those issues required a jury determination.

## Issues

1. Whether Outten’s prior conviction for inattentive driving precluded her from contesting negligence or liability in the subsequent civil action under collateral estoppel.
2. Whether the statutory violation entitled Cunningham to partial summary judgment on liability or, alternatively, to a negligence-per-se jury instruction.

## Decision

- The court denied Cunningham’s motion for partial summary judgment on liability.
- The court held the traffic conviction did not have issue-preclusive effect sufficient to establish civil negligence and liability as a matter of law.
- The court ruled Cunningham was entitled at trial to a negligence-per-se jury instruction based on Outten’s violation of 21 Del. C. § 4176(b).
- The court held the negligence-per-se instruction was not conclusive on causation or ultimate liability, which remained for the jury.

## Legal Principles

- Collateral estoppel requires that the identical issue was actually litigated and determined, and that the determination was essential to the prior judgment.
- A traffic conviction for inattentive driving does not automatically and conclusively establish negligence and liability in a later civil action arising from the same incident.
- Violation of a motor-vehicle safety statute may constitute negligence per se when the statute is intended to protect a class of persons from the type of harm that occurred.
- Even where negligence per se applies, the plaintiff must still prove causation and damages, and the factfinder may still consider comparative fault.
- Summary judgment on liability is improper where material factual disputes remain concerning causation or fault allocation.

## Conclusion

The court refused to treat a prior inattentive-driving conviction as dispositive of civil liability, denied partial summary judgment, and allowed the case to proceed to trial with a negligence-per-se instruction while leaving causation and ultimate liability for the jury to decide.


Cunningham v. Outten, No. 97C-10-014 WLW, 2001 WL 428687 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 26, 2001)