## Facts

- Clifford C. Ennis and Mary F. Ennis owned a farm at the corner of Delaware Routes 9 and 6.
- In 1956, the Delaware State Highway Department obtained a “daylighting” easement over the corner area to keep motorists’ views around the intersection unobstructed.
- On July 27, 1977, the Ennises conveyed the farm to the State of Delaware through the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC).
- The conveyance was made subject to easements of record, including the Highway Department’s daylighting easement.
- The deed reserved to the Ennises substantial rights, including the right to live in the farmhouse and use outbuildings for their lifetimes and the right to grow corn or soybeans on all tillable acres.
- After the conveyance, corn was grown near the corner; the Guys alleged the corn and other vegetation obstructed sight lines protected by the daylighting easement.
- On August 28, 1977, the Guys were injured in an auto collision at the intersection involving a vehicle that allegedly failed to stop at a stop sign.
- The Guys sued the Ennises, alleging the sight obstruction contributed to the collision and their injuries.
- The Ennises moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Highway Department’s daylighting easement was extinguished when the farm was conveyed to DNREC (a state agency), and that they therefore had no continuing responsibility tied to the easement.

## Issues

1. Whether the Highway Department’s daylighting easement was extinguished when the Ennises conveyed the servient land to the State through DNREC, such that the easement could no longer be relied on in claims against the Ennises.
2. Whether, given the Ennises’ reserved rights to occupy and farm the land, there were triable fact questions as to their control over the conditions alleged to have obstructed the intersection and contributed to the accident.

## Decision

- The court denied the Ennises’ motion for summary judgment.
- The court held that the daylighting easement was not extinguished by the 1977 conveyance to DNREC, particularly where the deed conveyed the property “subject to” existing easements of record.
- The court concluded that factual disputes remained as to whether the easement area was obstructed by corn/vegetation and whether the Ennises’ reserved farming rights and related conduct could support liability; those disputes could not be resolved on summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- An easement is not automatically terminated merely because the servient fee is later conveyed to a governmental entity connected to the easement holder; termination by “merger” generally requires unity of ownership in a way that is legally complete and inconsistent with continuing separate interests, and intent matters.
- Deed language conveying property “subject to” existing easements is evidence that the parties meant for recorded easements to continue after the conveyance.
- A landowner who transfers title but retains significant rights of possession or land use (including the right to grow crops) may retain enough control over conditions on the land to owe duties to third parties affected by those conditions.
- Summary judgment is improper where material disputes exist about the continued legal effect of an easement and about breach and causation (including whether an alleged sight obstruction existed, violated the easement’s purpose, and contributed to an accident).

## Conclusion

The Superior Court of Delaware refused to grant summary judgment to the Ennises because the highway daylighting easement was not wiped out by the farm’s conveyance to DNREC subject to easements of record, and because the Ennises’ reserved rights—especially the right to farm—left open fact questions about their control over the alleged sight obstruction and whether that obstruction contributed to the Guys’ injuries.


Guy v. Delaware, 438 A.2d 1250 (1981)