Kiss v. Lathrop

Kiss v. Lathrop

2026 WL 244475 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 29, 2026)

Superior Court of Delaware, C.A. No. N24C-05-080 CLS

Relevant Facts

• Defendant Paul Lathrop operated a business from his home in Hockessin, Delaware, buying and reselling used bikes online via Facebook Marketplace and Craigslist in Delaware and Pennsylvania.

• In April 2022, Plaintiff Lauren Kiss, a Pennsylvania resident, contacted Defendant about purchasing a Cannondale Synapse bicycle advertised on a Philadelphia Craigslist page.

• On April 10, 2022, Plaintiff traveled to Defendant's Delaware home to pick up the bike; Defendant adjusted the seat post to fit Plaintiff before the sale was completed.

• Three months later, in July 2022, Plaintiff was riding the bike on the Schuylkill River Trail in Pennsylvania when the seat post detached, causing injuries.

• Plaintiff filed suit in Delaware alleging negligence and strict product liability (under Pennsylvania law).

• Defendant moved for partial summary judgment, arguing Delaware law applies and Delaware does not recognize strict product liability in tort.

Legal Issues

• Whether Delaware or Pennsylvania law governs Plaintiff's strict product liability claim.

• Whether the place of injury (Pennsylvania) was merely fortuitous or carried determinative weight in the choice-of-law analysis.

• Whether Defendant was entitled to partial summary judgment on the strict product liability claim.

Positions of the Parties

• Defendant argued that Delaware law applies under Hervey v. Leisure World Corp. and that Delaware does not recognize strict product liability in tort, entitling him to summary judgment on that claim.

• Plaintiff contended that Pennsylvania law governs because the most significant relationship test under the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts points to Pennsylvania, where the injury occurred, the product was used, and Plaintiff resided.

Decision of the Court and Reasons

The Court denied Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment, finding that Pennsylvania law applies under the most significant relationship test from the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts. The Court rejected Defendant's reliance on Hervey v. Leisure World Corp. because Delaware courts have since adopted the most significant relationship test for tort choice-of-law questions. Analyzing the Section 145 contacts, the Court found that: (1) the place of injury was Pennsylvania and was not fortuitous because Plaintiff lived and worked there; (2) the place where the conduct causing injury occurred favored Pennsylvania because the bike was listed on Pennsylvania Craigslist, delivered to a Pennsylvania resident, and used in Pennsylvania; (3) the parties' domiciles were split but Pennsylvania had a stronger relationship given Plaintiff's residence, work, and injury there; and (4) the place of the parties' relationship was neutral. The Section 6 principles did not compel a different outcome.