The defendants, William and Mary Wade, sought an extension of time to bring a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action against them, alleging that trees on their property obstructed visibility at an intersection where a serious motor vehicle collision occurred.
The plaintiffs, the Greens, opposed the extension.
The court dismissed the Wades' motion, finding substantial delay without satisfactory explanation, significant prejudice to the plaintiffs, and a risk of inconsistent factual findings if the summary judgment motion proceeded.
The court emphasized that the novel legal question of a private property owner's duty of care to motorists on adjacent roadways is best determined at a full trial, aligning with principles of proportionality, timeliness, and affordability.
