Court Opinion on Daubert Motions and Summary Judgment

1 I N THE SUPERIO R COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE VANESS A ANDINO, Indiv idually) and as the Adm inis tratr ix o f the E sta te) of BRY AN MAL DO NADO - ANDINO) C.A. No.: N22C - 10 - 671 F JJ and th e Esta te of JOVAN) MAL DONA DO - ANDINO; and) JOAQ UIN MALDONADO,)) Plain tif f s,) v.)) NEXI US SOL UT IO NS, I NC.;) MYNDCO, INC.; SUNBELT) RENT ALS, IN C.,)) Defe nda nts.) S ubmi tted: Fe brua ry 4, 202 6 Decid ed: Feb rua ry 25, 2026 O PINION AND ORDER ON DAUB ERT MOTIONS AND MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT T imothy E. Le ngkeek, E squir e, Young C onawa y Star ga tt and Ta y lor, L LP, Wilmin gton, Del aw are, David L. Kwa ss, Esq uire a nd Mic hae l J. Zett lem oyer, Esquir e (argue d), Sa ltz Mo ngel uzz i Be ndes ky, Attorn ey f or Plainti ff. Walte r O’Br ien, Esquire, Weber Galla ghe r S imps on Sta pl eto n Fir es & Newb y, LLP, Wilm ing ton, De lawa r e, Attorne y for Def endant Nexius I ns igh t, Inc. R. J oseph Hrubie c, Esqui re, Post & Schell, P.C., Wil mington, Dela ware, At torne y f or Defe ndan t Myn dco, Inc. J oshua D. Sch eet s, Es qui re, Marshall Dennehe y, P. C., Wilmin gto n, De lawa re, Attor ney f or Sunbe lt Ren tals, Inc. Jon es, J.

2 Plain tif f s, V anes sa And ino, on be half of h erse lf an d as a re pre se ntat ive of the Esta tes of bo th B rya n Ma ldo nado - Andino and Jo van M aldon ado - Andino (“Deceden ts”), and J oaqu in Ma ldo nado (c ollec ti vel y “Plaint iffs”), bring wrongful death c laim s agai nst Nexius S olutions, In c. (“Nexiu s”), Myn dco, Inc. (“M yn dco”), and Sun belt R entals, Inc. (“Sunb elt”) (co llectiv ely “De fendant s”). On Novem ber 2, 2020, Dec eden ts we n t up i n an ae rial lif t to w ork o n a ce ll p hone towe r in B et han y Beach, Delaw are, when the lif t was blo w n ove r allegedly due to high wi nds, tragic al ly kil ling th e two me n. At the ti me of t he No vem ber 2, 202 0 acc iden t, Deceden ts were em ployed by V elex, Inc. (“V elex”). Each of the thre e defe ndants named above ha s moved f or S ummary Judgm ent. In ad dition, Daube rt Moti ons have be en fi le d challe ng ing t he tes tim ony of P laint if f s’ liabili ty e xpert Anthony Lu si and P la intif fs’ dama ge expert Wa y n e Ross, M.D. T his is the Co urt’ s deci sion on the summa ry j udgment m otions of N exi us and My n dc o and the Daubert challenge a s to Dr. Ros s. 1 F ACTS When v iewe d in a light m ost favor able to t he Pla inti ffs, th e fol lowing fac tua l recor d is revea led. 1 The Summary J udgment Moti on of S unbelt an d the Daubert challenge as to Antho ny Lus i remain pe nding as suppleme ntal bri efi ng is occ ur ring.

3 Nexi us i s the head of a fam ily of ent ities at issue in this case. 2 V el ex, In c. (“V el ex”) is one of the corpor ation s fall ing under the N exius um brella. 3 Ori gin ally enti tled “ Nex ius F usion,” V e lex u nderwe nt a nam e cha nge arou nd 201 6. 4 V elex is a subc ontra ctor of Ne xius who pe rforme d fiel d wor k. 5 Myn dco, anoth er ent ity in the family, wa s crea ted by Nexi us as “the t raining a rm of the Infin iux gr oup of fami lies – of c ompa nies. ” 6 Sunb elt is an equi pment r ental c ompany not part of the Nex ius famil y of entiti es. N exius an d Sunbe lt ha d a Par tnership Agree ment in p lace si nce at lea st 20 15, and th is is where Nex ius rente d the arial lift / ultraboom / m obile eleva ted w ork platf orm (“ME WP”) at is sue in the prese nt case. 7 Desp ite be ing separ ate entit ies, Nex ius s till e xerted i nflue nce over the o ther enti ties in the “ fami ly of com panies. ” 8 As one Nex ius vi ce preside nt put it, “there’ s so mu ch like overlap an d influen ce betw een Ne xius a nd V ele x and M yndco be cau se it’ s all part of the s ame um brella.” 9 David Hall, the S enior Dir ecto r of S afety for Nexi us a t the time of the incid ent, sta ted “[Ne xius] o versaw safety fo r V ele x opera tions. ” 10 For e xample, Ne xius create d and im plemente d the customized Job Safet y Analy sis (“ JSA”) forms us ed on each V ele x jobsit e. 11 The JSA was ut iliz ed 2 Docket Item (“D.I.”) 280, at 3. 3 Id. at 4. 4 Id. at 3. 5 D.I. 258, at 6, 8. 6 D.I. 280, at 3; D.I. 278, at 2. 7 D.I. 280, at 2. 8 D.I. 280, at 3. 9 D.I. 280, at 4. 10 D.I. 280, at 3. 11 D.I. 280, at 12.

4 “[t] o ide ntify the scope, i dentify a ny haza rds, and then what controls w ould be imple mented to co ntrol those hazar ds. ” 12 Furthermore, Nexius could also determ ine whic h safe ty of fic ial s would be u sed at a given jo bsi te, 13 and perf ormed saf et y audi ts. 14 Nexi us employe es also ha d the abili ty to shu tdow n V ele x jobsite s whe n they dee med it a ppro priate. 15 T urning to My ndco, a s the traini ng arm of Nex ius al l the new - hir e emp loy ee train ing was to t ake place thro ugh M yndco. 16 Howe ver, Nexiu s still re tain ed “over sight of cur ric ulum deve lopmen t and ove rsight of tr aining d eliv ery.” 17 Myndc o also c ould not c hange th e train ing pr ogram cur ric ula witho ut Nexiu s’ appro val. 18 As a N exius su bcontra ctor, V elex en tered in to a Ma ster Const ruction Subcont racting Ag reement (“V elex Agr eement”) with Nexius in Decem ber of 2016. This a gre eme nt lai d out the foll owing: 1) “[s] ubcontra ctor is so lely resp ons ible fo r maint aining sa fe w orking c ondit ions for Su bcontrac tor ’ s employee s and for protec ting pe rson s and propert y;” 19 2) V elex is respo nsi ble for all staf fing a nd super vision re quirem ents; 20 3) V ele x shall en sure a ll t hose w orking on - site shall ha ve 12 D.I. 280, at 12. 13 See D.I. 253, at 1 1; s ee also D.I. 280, at 6. 14 D.I. 280, at 6, 7. 15 D.I. 280, at 1 1. 16 D.I. 258, at 1 1. 17 D.I. 280, at 5 - 6. 18 D.I. 255, at 5. 19 D.I. 280, at 6. 20 Id. at 6 - 7.

5 the re quire d cert ificatio ns; 21 4) V elex wil l follow a ll safet y regula tions w hi le work ing on - site; 22 5) V elex is re sponsib le fo r the hiri ng, disc ipli ning, a nd firing o f thei r employee s; 23 6) Nexius w as n ot requir ed t o exe rci se any co ntrol o ver V e lex or its em ployee s, an d an y decisio n issue d by Ne xius did not confer any respo nsibilit y to the m for the ensui ng action s taken b y V elex; 24 7) Nexius has no contr ol ove r any emplo yee of V ele x; 25 and 8) V e lex is sole ly resp onsible f or the act ion a nd omissi ons of its em pl oyees i n the scop e of the ir em ployment. 26 As such, V elex dete rmine d what cr ew s were sent to which wor ksites. 27 However, Nexi us s till “o vers aw safety for V elex operations” 28 and w ere kept a pprise d of w hich wo rkers were at w hich work site s. 29 In Jan uary of 2 019, Ne xius e ntered i nto a Master A gree me nt with T - Mobile USA, In c. (“T - Mobi le”) to work on some of their tele phone tow ers. 30 As the gene ra l contra ctor, Nexi us held t he co ntract w hile V elex com pleted the w ork as the subc ontra ctor. 31 Th e T - Mobile A greemen t req uired Ne xius to: 1) be r esp onsible f or maint aining a nd su pervis ing al l safety prec auti ons in con nection with the w ork; and 21 Id. at 7. 22 Id. at 7. 23 Id. at 7. 24 Id. at 7 - 8. 25 Id. at 8. 26 Id. at 8. 27 D.I. 258, at 8. 28 D.I. 280, at 5. 29 D.I. 280, at 10 - 11. 30 D.I. 280, at 8; D.I. 25 8, at 8. 31 D.I. 258, at 8.

6 2) exa mi ne the wor ksites a nd local conditi ons, spe cific ally fo r uncerta in w ea ther and other ph ysical co nditions. 32 T o comple te th eir work, N exius r eg ularly rent ed MEWPs from c o mpani es such a s Sunbe lt. 33 Nex ius’ Partn ership Agreement with Sunbelt provided th at Nexiu s would ensure tha t only prope rly traine d and cert ifie d ind ividual s woul d use the Sunbelt e quipment. 34 Thi s was furt her conf irmed in th e rental agreemen t of the MEWP at issu e. 35 Deceden ts were hired to wor k for V elex o n Octob er 19, 2020. 36 As the appo inte d “ent ity to tr ain V ele x,” 37 t he D ec eden ts “ rece ive d training f rom My ndco, inclu ding OS HA 10, Bloodbo rne Patho gen s A wareness, Co mpetent Climbe r & Resc uer, Comp etent R igger, a nd RF A warene ss train ings a nd cert ifica tions. ” 38 Myndc o provide d the “clas sroom /theore tical” tra ining for use of the MEWP at issu e but not the ha nds - on tr aining. 39 Sunbelt’ s D istrict S afety T rainer, Kevin D ominguez, state d that the cer tif ied MEWP tra ining w ould ha ve addre ssed “unsaf e mane uvers, unsafe -- unsaf e win d speeds, unsafe haza rds that c ould c aus e incide nts or o bviousl y cata stro phic eve nts. ” 40 Dece dent s then be gan worki ng for V elex wi thout ha ving 32 D.I. 280, at 9. 33 D.I. 253, at 6. 34 D.I. 253, at 6. 35 D.I. 253, a t 6; D. I. 280, at 10. 36 D.I. 280, at 2. 37 D.I. 278, at 2. 38 D.I. 255, at 6. 39 D.I. 255, a t 6. Myndco as serts that the se cond half o f the traini ng, the ha nds - on half, was supposed to be c omplete d by V elex due to the compan y’ s Covi d - 19 re strictions. 40 D.I. 278, at 3.

7 compl eted their a er ial lif t / MEWP train ing. 41 Ho wever, J ason Alves, the Nexius market manager, 42 wa s no t awar e of an y circum stance i n which M yndco w oul d rele ase pers onnel into the field without completi ng th eir MEWP t raining and certi ficatio n. 43 On Oc tober 24, 20 20, Deceden ts were a ssigned to and be gan wor king at the Suss ex W ater C ompany wat er to wer cell a ntenn ae in B ethany B each. 44 Ne xius made the decis ion not to e mploy a f ie l d c onstr uction ma nager a t the Betha ny Beach jo bsite and in stead utilize d a fie ld service m ana ger. 45 A fie ld con structio n manager i s an on - site em pl oyee in char ge of safe ty, whi le a fiel d service m anager ha d the same d utie s but wor ked rem otely. 46 After some issue s with the orig inal lift, Nexius r ented a secon d MEWP from Sunbe lt for th e crew to use at t he Susse x water tow er jobsi te on Octo ber 30, 20 20. 47 However, no wor k was com ple ted o n October 30 du e to ra iny and wi ndy cond ition s; 48 thi s was n ot an a bnormal occurre nce. 49 On Nove mber 1, 2020, the N ationa l W eat her se rvice i n Mount H olly i ssue d a wind a dvi sor y for the D elawa re be ache s that was i n eff ect until 7 PM on No vembe r 2. 50 On Nove mber 2, 2020, Ala n Frazie r, the A ssociate vice pre sident of Nex ius, 41 D.I. 255, at 6 - 7; D.I. 278, a t 4; D.I. 253, at 3 -4; D. I. 279, at 2. As such, the y were not certifi ed t o operat e t he MEWP. 42 D.I. 253, at 12. 43 D.I. 278, at 8, 9. 44 D.I. 253, at 5. 45 D.I. 253, at 1 1. 46 D.I. 253, at 1 1. 47 D.I. 253, a t 6; see a lso D.I. 2 80, at 7 (not ing t hat “Ne xius was responsible for the lift fro m the ti me it was dropped of f until t he time it was picked up b y the re ntal company.”) 48 D.I. 253, a t 6; D. I. 258, at 9. 49 D.I. 253, at 7, 11. 50 D.I. 253, at 8.

8 shut do wn the B altimor e - W ashin gton mar ket, the N ew Y ork market a nd t he New Engla nd m arket du e to high wind s. 51 However, the New J ersey market, whi ch incl uded t he Bet hany Beac h sit e, was n ot shut down by Mr. Frazier because he belie ved V elex k new not to ope rate give n the hig h win ds. 52 V elex, Nexius, or Myndc o could ha ve made a c all to shut dow n the job s ite. 53 It was th eir inter nal polic y to not us e an a e ria l lift if the wi nds exceede d 20mph. 54 On th e morni ng o f Nove mber 2, 2020, the wind advis ory was updated at 3:52 AM i ndica ting su stained w inds w ould be aroun d 25 - 35 mph, with gusts reaching up to 50 mph. 55 The manual f or the s pecific MEWP in use at t he jobsi te, a Genie Z - 135/70 art iculatin g boom lif t, 56 in dicate s the maxim um wind t hre shol d for th e lift is 28mph. 57 However, Dece dents, who were not certifi ed to use th e MEWP, began opera ti ng the li ft at the Bet hany B eac h jobs ite. 58 Around 10:30 AM, t he lift tip ped over, kill ing Dece den ts. 59 At the tim e of the a cci dent, wind gusts ra nged fr om 35 - 44 mp h at the in ciden t loca tion. 60 Multi ple witnesse s testif ied a s to the high w inds 51 Id. at 12. 52 Id. at 12. 53 Id. at 12; see also D. I. 280, at 6 -7, 11 (highl ighting a Nexius R egional Senior Safety Spe ciali st assigned to t he Baltimore - W ashingt on market, in addition to Mr. F razier, re tained the a uthori ty to shut down jobsite s); se e also D.I. 278, at 2 (acknow led ging Myn dco was respons ible for issuin g safet y stand - downs an d releasi ng crews back to work); see also D.I. 258, at 13 (not ing V elex c ould over ride any Ne xius decision and they c ould shut down a jobsite if needed). 54 Id. at 12. 55 D.I. 253, at 7 - 8. 56 D.I. 280, at 2. 57 D.I. 253, at 8. 58 D.I. 253, at 7 - 8. 59 D.I. 253, at 8. 60 D.I. 253, at 8.

9 that d ay a nd the trou ble it cau sed i n their da ily ro utines. 61 Af ter the accid ent, Nexius place d all Nor theast R egio n work, an d eventua lly all V e lex crew s nationw ide, in a safe ty sh utdow n. 62 The fed eral Occ upation al S afety and Healt h Administrat ion (OSH A) investi gated the i ncident, and on April 30, 2021, O SHA cited V e lex for th ree Serio us V iola tion s as a result. 63 DAUBERT MOTION AS TO DR. W A YNE ROSS Plain tiff s have of fer ed W a yne Ros s, M.D. (“R oss ”), as an exper t on c onsciou s pain and su ffer ing. Defenda nt Mynd co ha s moved to exc lud e his t esti mony regar ding Dece dents’ pain a nd suff ering i n the ac cide nt und er Daube rt. They ass ert Dr. Ros s is specula ti ng tha t Dece dents ma inta ined consc iousnes s and as to the durat ion of tha t consc iousnes s. Plaint iff s respo nd that Dr. R oss’ exte nsiv e backg round, re liance on accepte d scien tific met hodolo gy an d applica tion of t hose metho dologie s to the fa cts of this cas e sup port the a dmis sion of hi s tes timony. Delaware Rule o f Evidence “ 702 governs the adm issibil ity o f exp ert opin ion testi mony. ” 64 The Dela ware Rul e is co nsisten t with th e Feder al Rule of E videnc e 70 2, an d Delawar e has a dopte d the ho ldi ngs in bo th Dauber t v. Merr ell Do w Pharm aceuti cals I nc. and Kumho T ir e Co., Ltd. v. Carm ich ael. 65 “ The par ty seek ing 61 D.I. 253, at 8 - 10. 62 D.I. 280, at 1 1. 63 D.I. 258, at 10; see also Ex. H. 64 In r e Zantac (Ranitidi ne) Litig., 342 A.3d 1 131, 1 143 (Del. 2025). 65 Br own v. Fisher - Price, Inc., 336 A.3d 139, 145 (Del. Super. C t. 2025) (citin g Bowen v. E.I. DuPont de Ne mours & Co., 906 A.2d 787, 794 (Del. 2006)); see al so In r e Zantac (Rani tidine) Liti g., 342 A.3d 1 131, 1 144 (Del. 20 25).

10 to int roduce th e expert testim ony bears the burde n of est ablishin g its admis sibility by a preponderan ce of the evide n ce. ” 66 “T o be admissi ble, expe rt test imony m ust be ‘rele vant and r elia ble.’ ” 67 The Delaware Supreme C ourt has summarize d a tria l judge ’ s con siderat ions in ma king thi s determin ation: Consi stent with Daub ert, we apply a five - ste p test to deter min e the adm issibi lit y of sc ientif ic or t echnical expert test imony. T he tria l judge must det ermine whet her: (1) the wit ness is qu alified a s an exper t by know ledge, skill exper ience, t raining or edu cation; (2) the ev idence i s rele vant; (3) the exper t's op inion is base d upon infor mat ion reaso nably r elied upon by exp erts in the part icula r field; (4) the exper t testim ony will as sist the trie r of fac t to under stand the e vidence or to det ermine a fa ct in issu e; and (5) the exper t test imony wil l not create unfair preju dice or confu se or mis lead the jury. 68 “ The in quir y is a flex ible one.” 69 While “[a] str ong prefer ence exis ts for admitt ing exper t op inions w hen they wil l ass ist the trier of f act in under stand ing the re levant fact s or t he evide nce,” 70 it is impor tant t o remem ber this Co urt ac ts as a gate keeper. 71 “ Delaw are law a llow s recove ry for con scious p ain a nd suf fer ing e xper ienced betwe en the time o f injur y and dea th. ” 72 “[U] nder the S urvi val Statu te [,] conscious 66 Bowen v. E.I. DuP ont de N emours & Co., 906 A.2d 787, 79 5 (Del. 2006) (citi ng Minner v. Am. M ortgage & G uar. Co., 791 A.2d 826, 843 (Del. Super. Ct. 2000)). 67 B ro wn, 336 A.3d at 1 46 (citing Dauber t v. Merr ell Dow Pharm s., Inc., 509 U. S. 579, 597 (1993)). 68 Bowe n, 906 A.2d at 795 (citin g T olson v. State, 900 A.2d 63 9, 645 (Del. 2006)). 69 In r e Zantac, 342 A. 3d at 1 144 (quoti ng Dauber t v. Merr ell Dow Phar ms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 59 4 (1993)) (internal quotatio ns omitted). 70 B ro wn, 336 A.3d at 14 6 (citing Smac k - Dixon v. W al - M art, Inc., 2021 WL 3012056, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. J uly 16, 2021)) (int ernal quota tions omit ted). 71 In r e Zantac, 342 A.3d at 1 135; see al so Br own v. Fisher - Price, Inc., 202 4 WL 5199952, at *1 (Del. S uper. Ct. De c. 20, 2024) (“[T] his C ourt act s as ga tekeepe r, determini ng if ‘the re asonin g or methodolog y underlying the tes timony is s cienti fical ly vali d and ... w hether that reas oning or meth odology prope rly c an be a pplie d to the facts in issue.’”). 72 T ruitt v. W inder, 2025 W L 3487494, at * 13 (Del. Supe r. Ct. Dec. 4, 20 25)

11 pain an d suff eri ng from the t ime of injur y until dea th is a prope r ele me nt of re cover y … prov ided t hat the pla int if f pr ove s by a pre pondera nce of the evidence that the dece dent did not die instanta neously u pon impac t and t hat there w as some appre cia ble inter val” of pain a nd suf fering c onsc iously ex perie nced by t he Decede nt after t he injur y occurr ed. 73 “ Exper t testim ony p lays a cri tical ro le in dete rm ini ng whet her c onsciou s pain a nd suf fering occurre d. ” 74 “T he vali dity of an e xper t's concl usions r emains a que stion for t he jur y provide d the e xper t utilize d a relia ble methodo logy. ” 75 In E state o f Albe rta Rae v. Mur phy, this C ourt d enied a Mot ion for Summary Judgme nt o n the i ssue of co nsc ious pain a nd suf fering, holding that a jur y should resol ve the dispute when t wo “appro priatel y quali fied” e xperts disagr eed as to a dec ede nts consc ious pai n and suf fer ing. 76 T he C ourt is satis fied as to the prof fered e xpert’ s qualifi cation s. Dr. Ross is a board - cer tified fore nsic pat hol ogist, neuropa thologi st, and me dica l exam iner wit h over 4 0 years of e xpe rience wh o has comp leted mor e than 14, 800 autop sies. He ha s serve d as a fore nsi c path ologist a nd medi cal e xamine r for mul tiple Pen nsylvan ia coun ties a nd has he ld numer ous aca demic p ositi ons. This C ourt has a lso p revi ously 73 Magee v. Rose, 405 A.2d 143, 146 (Del. Supe r. Ct. 1979) (ci ting T ur col v. Jenki ns, 49 D el. 596, 598, 122 A.2d 224 (Del. Sup er. Ct. 1956)) (internal citatio n omitted). 74 T ruitt, 2025 WL 3487494, at *13. 75 Br own v. Fisher - Price, Inc., 2024 WL 519995 2, at * 4 (Del. Super. Ct. D ec. 20, 2024). 76 Est. of Alberta Rae v. Mur phy, 2006 WL 1067277, at *5 (Del. S uper. Ct. Apr. 19, 200 6), af f'd sub n om. Est. of Ra e v. Murphy, 9 56 A.2d 1266 (De l. 2008).

12 foun d Dr. Ro ss’ qua lifica tions me et the D elaware sta ndard to te stify a s an expert on this iss ue. 77 As to t he relia bilit y of his f indings, th e Cour t is agai n satisf ied t hat Dr. Ros s has u til ized a cc epte d metho dolog ies to r each his conc lusion s. As the ex hibits indic ate, he ha s relied upon 1) his 40 year s of expe rie nce in the f ield; 2) the aut opsy findi ngs of Decede nts; 3) other rec ords fr om the pr esent case i ndicat ing t he fact s of the inc ident; an d 4) an exte nsive review of me dical an d scie ntific l itera ture. His repor ts s how he a pplied the G l asgow Coma Score framew ork and article s publi shed in the fie ld o f c ogniti ve br ain r esearc h. Ad ditiona lly, thi s Court has al so prev iousl y foun d Dr. Ro ss’ te stimony a s to con scio us pain a nd suf fering determi nations t o be the pro duct of suf fici ently reli able meth odology. 78 For these rea sons, t he Court i s sati sfie d tha t Dr. Ross’ find ing s are grou nded in re liab le scien tifi c method s. Accor dingly, the D aubert Mot ion to Excl ude Dr. Ross’ test imony is DENIED. SUMMAR Y J UDGMENT MOTI ONS ST ANDARD OF RE VIEW Super ior C ourt Ci vil Rule 5 6(c) sta tes a party see king summ ary ju dgment must s how “ther e is no ge nuine iss ue a s to an y ma teria l fac t and that t he movin g party i s enti tled to a jud gmen t as a mat ter of law. ” 79 “A genuin e issue of ma terial 77 Br own v. Fisher - Price, Inc., 2024 WL 519995 2, at * 4 - 5 (Del. Super. Ct. De c. 20, 202 4). 78 Id. 79 Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56(c).

13 fact i s one th at ‘may reas onably be resol ved in favo r of either party.’” 80 The cour t view s the e videnc e provide d “i n a light m ost fav ora ble t o the no n - moving par ty.” 81 The ini tial b urden is on the movi ng party to show there are no genuin e issues of material fact. 82 The burde n then shif ts to the no n - moving party to sho w there is at least one mate rial i ssue of fac t in disp ute. 83 The co urt must c ons ider “ the plead ings, depo sit ions, a nswers to interr oga tories, and admi ssi ons on fil e, toget her with af fidavi ts, if any, ” in det ermini ng whether there is a genuine iss ue as to any m ater ia l fact, 84 and the cour t must “acc ep t all un dispute d factual as sertio ns and ac ce pt th e nonm oving part y’ s versi on of an y dispute d facts.” 85 Howeve r, any factua l infere nce s made in fa vor of the non - m oving par ty must be rea sona ble. 86 THE NEXIUS SUMMAR Y JUDGMENT M OTION Defe nda nt Nexius h as mo ved for sum mary jud gment as t o the alle gations again st it. 87 Nexi us mainta ins that a s the ge neral con tract or, it owed no du ty to the emplo yees of V elex, a n indep ende nt contr acto r. 88 Spe cific ally, Nexius arg u e s “Dela ware law provides that a ge ner al co ntracto r does not have a du ty t o pro tect an 80 Saunders v. Light wave Logic, Inc., 2024 WL 451 2227, at *6 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 17, 2024) (quoti ng M o o r e v. Sizem or e, 405 A.2d 679, 680 – 81 (Del. 1 979)). 81 Gi bson v. Metr o. Grp. Pr op. And Cas. Ins. Co., 2017 WL 5606714, at *2 (De l. Super. C t. Nov. 15, 2017) (citing Burkhar t v. Davies, 602 A.2d 56, 5 9 (Del. 1991)). 82 Id. 83 Id. 84 Coker v. T enney - Andr ews, 2016 WL 6659500, at *2 (D el. Super. Ct. Nov. 10, 2016) (quot ing D el. Su per. Ct. C iv. R. 56(c)). 85 Id. (quotin g Sztybe l v. W algr een C o., 201 1 WL 2623930, a t *2 (D el. Supe r. Ct. J une 29, 2 011)). 86 Smith v. Haldeman, 201 2 W L 361 1895, at *1 (Del. S uper. Ct. Aug. 21, 2012) (citi ng Mer genthaler v. Asbes tos C orp. Of America, Inc., 1988 W L 16284, at *5 (D el. S uper. Ct. J uly 13, 198 8). 87 D.I. 258. 88 D.I. 258, at 15.

14 inde pend ent contr actor ’ s emp loyees fr om the haza rds of compl etin g the con tract.” 89 Nexi us rec ognizes t hat thre e exce ptions to this r ule exist: 1) “if th e general c ontr actor active ly co ntro ls the ma nner and met hod of pe rfor ming t he c ont ract wor k;” 90 2) “ if the general contra ctor volunt arily under takes r esponsi bilit y for im plemen ting sa fety measu res;” 91 and 3) “ if the ge neral co ntra ctor r etai ns posses sory contr ol over th e prem ises d uring the wor k.” 92 Nex ius asser t s n one of these e xcep tions appl y to the insta nt ca se. Plain tiff s resp ond that s ummary ju dgment s hou ld be de nied a s they ha ve raise d mu ltiple i ssues of dispute d fact: 1) N exius ac tively con trolled t he metho d and manne r of wor k being c omplete d at the jobsi te; 2) Nex ius volunta ril y assume d respons ibili ty for saf ety; 3) the safe ty meas ures N exius im plem ented w ere defic ient and w as a pr oximate cause of the h arm to De cede nts; 4) Ne xius had in depende n t dutie s as t he MEWP “user” u nder the r ental ag reemen t and ANSI stan dar ds; a nd 5) exper t test imony sup port s Nexiu s’ li abi lity. 93 The qu estion of whe ther Nexius owed a duty to D ecede nts is the central is sue in Ne xius’ mo tion. Specifically, the iss ue is whethe r P laint if fs can d emo nstr ate facts that f it withi n the e xcepti on to the ge neral r ule. I. There is a G enuine Fact ual D ispute of Whet her Nexi us Ha d Ac tive Contr ol Over t he V e lex J obsite 89 Id. at 15 (citin g Handler Corp. v. Tlapec hco, 901 A.2d 7 37, 743 (Del. 2006)). 90 Id. at 15 - 16 (citin g W illiams v. Cantera, 274 A.2d 698, 700 (Del. Super. Ct. 1971)). 91 Id. at 16 - 17 (citin g Figgs v. B ellevue Holdi ng Co., 652 A.2d 1084, 1092 (Del. S uper. Ct. 1994)). 92 Id. at 17 (citin g Bryant v. Delm arva Pow er & L ight Co., 1995 WL 653987, at *8 - 9 (Del. Super. Ct. O ct. 2, 19 95)). 93 D.I. 280, at 13 -1 4.

15 A gener al con tractor owes a d uty to pr otect an independ ent con tracto r ’ s emplo yees w here the general c ontract or activ ely c ontr ols the ma nner a nd me thod o f the wor k perform ed. “[W ]hile the concep t of ac tive c ontrol i s an ela stic one, it i s not inf er red f rom mer e rete ntion by the ow ner or co ntracto r of the rig ht to ins pect or to supe rvi se the work for conf ormity w ith t he cont ract.” 94 Instead, “active contro l” refer s to th e right t o con trol the “manne r or meth ods used b y the i ndepende nt cont ractor.” 95 “[I] f the auth orit y exerted b y the owner over the work is ins uf ficien t to rend er it liable und er the gener al rule re garding a ctive con tro l,” the owner cou ld still b e found liab le “‘if it re tained s uff icie nt contr ol ove r pa rt o f the w ork or if i t reta ined p ossessor y control ove r the work prem ises duri ng the wor k. ’” 96 “ In decid ing defen dant ’ s summa ry judgme nt motio n, the contra ct ual agree ment s ent ere d into b etween th e parti es repre sent addit iona l relev ant eviden ce regar ding the exist ence of a duty owed to pl aintiff. ” 97 In Cook v. E. I. D uPont de Nemou rs and Co., t he Super ior C ourt fo und that DuPo nt “suf ficient ly ‘i nter jecte d itself ’ ” into the da y - to - da y operati ons of their inde pend ent contr act or for the fol lowing r eason s: 94 Kilgor e v. R.J. Kr oener, Inc., 2002 WL 480944, at *6 (Del. Supe r. Ct. Mar. 14, 2002) (cit ing S eeney v. Dover Country Club Apar tment s, Inc., 318 A.2d 6 19, 621 (Del. Super. Ct. 1974)); see also C ook v. E.I. D uPont de Ne mours & Co., 2001 W L 14 82685, at *2 (De l. S uper. Ct. Aug. 20, 2001). 95 Kilgore, 200 2 WL 480944, a t *6 (citing Seene y v. Dove r C ountry Club Apartme nts, Inc., 318 A.2d 6 19, 621 (Del. Super. Ct. 1974)). 96 Cook v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 2001 W L 1482685, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 20, 20 01) (quotin g Bryant v. Delmar va Power & Light Co., 1995 WL 653987, a t *8 (D el. Super. Ct. Oct. 2, 1995)). 97 I d. at * 3.

16 First, there w as a D uPont sup ervisor present a t the cons truct ion site on a da ily basi s. Secon d, there was a DuPon t supervis or engag ed in commun icati on with B CCI on a dai ly basis. Thir d, DuPont suppl ied tools t o BCCI, a t least on one occ asion. Fourth, DuP on t a ctivel y cont rolled, direc ted, and re stricte d the m ovement s of the BCC I employ ees, in cluding plaint iff. Fifth, Du Pont in spect ed BCCI' s offic es an d vehicle s, and re tai ned the abi lity to searc h the prem ises in c ase of a pr oblem. 98 As a re sult, th e Coo k c ourt de nied the def endant’ s mo tion for s umma ry judgment. Conve rsely, i n Kilgo r e v. R.J. Kr oen er, Inc., the Su perior C ourt granted t he defe ndan t’ s motion f or summ ary judg ment, in part, beca use “ the scaffolding from whic h Ki lgore f el l was neithe r ow ned nor c onstruc ted by [the def endant].” 99 The fa cts o f the prese nt case are similar t o those i n C ook. As to the first two highli ghted facts pr ovided b y the Co ok cour t, Nex ius had inp ut as to wha t safe ty super visors w ere or w ere not pr esent a t the Bet han y Beach V elex job site. Althou gh they c ould have had an on - site su pervisor prese nt, Ne xius instead made the c hoice to em ploy a r emote field s ervice m ana ger. Next, a key f act f or bot h the Co ok cou rt and th e Kilgore cou rt was who had c ontrol over the equip ment on the jobsit e. Here, Deceden ts ’ ac cident inv olved a MEW P lea sed by Nexius, the secon d suc h MEWP Nexi us pro vided to t hat jobsi te. F inally, as to t he last two r easo ns provid ed in Cook, Nexi us ex ercised c ontro l over the Beth any Beac h V ele x em ploye es thro ugh their abil ity t o sh ut d own w ork at the site an d by providing t he JSA. On t he morni ng of 98 Id. at *4. 99 Kilgore, 2002 WL 480944, at *6.

17 the ac cide nt, Nexiu s shut down o ther east c oast m arke ts due to high w ind. After the acci dent, Nex ius put all V ele x jobs ites nati onwi de in a safet y shutdow n. Furthe rmore, Nex ius creat ed JSAs ta ilored to each V elex jo bsite w hich hig hlig hte d the safe ty issue of tha t area, and w hat contr ols are in place to deal with t hem. V iew ing th ese fa c t s in a ligh t most fav ora ble to Pla intif fs, ther e is a genu ine fact ual d ispute o ver whether N exius e xercised active contr ol over t he V elex jobsite. Accor dingly, the Mot ion for Summa ry Judgment is DE NIED on this basi s. II. There is a G enuine Fact ual Dispu te of Wh ethe r Nexiu s V olu ntarily Assum ed R esp onsibil ity for Sa fety The sec ond excep tion to the ge neral ru le occ urs when a ge neral cont ractor “ volun tarily u nderta kes the res pon sibil ity for imp lementi ng safety me asur es ” at the jobsit e. 100 The D el aware Su p reme Co urt has clar ified tha t “ if [Defend ant] ass umed any re spon sibilit y for subc ontract or emplo yee safe ty, i t had an obli gation t o fulfil l that dut y with c are.” 101 Thus, De fenda nt does no t need t o take sole resp onsibil i ty for job site safe ty; taki ng even “s ome respo nsibili ty for w orkpla ce sa fety” is enou gh to leave a defe ndant ope n to lia bili ty if that du ty is not c arried ou t reasona bly. 102 “ A duty to en sure such saf ety ca n be im pose d upon a par ty who ‘by agree ment or 100 Handle r Cor p. v. Tlapechc o, 901 A.2d 737, 743 (Del. 200 6) (citing Figgs v. Bell evue Hol ding C o., 652 A.2d 1084, 1092 (Del. Super. Ct. 19 94)). 101 Id. at 74 7; see also Har for d Mut. Ins. C o. v. W ei ner, 2014 WL 4247724, at *4 (Del. Super. Ct. J uly 15, 2014). 102 Id.

18 otherw ise unde rtak es resp onsibi lity f or impl ementi ng the re qu ired s afety measures.’” 103 In Ur ena v. Capan o Home s, Inc., the Court ’ s analys is co nsider ed both the lang uage of the contr act betwe en the genera l and in dep enden t contrac tors, and t he actio ns taken by the gener al co ntractor to determ ine if ther e wa s an assum ption of safe ty dut ies. First, the Ur ena Cour t noted the contr act betwe en the two pa rties place d the assu mption of r es ponsibili ty for saf ety on the independ ent con trac tor. 104 Seco nd, the Co urt found “ [t]he con duct of [t he gene ral co ntrac tor] … does not sugge st tha t [th e gener al cont ractor ] accepte d any respo nsibi lity fo r the condu ct of the w orker s of an in depende nt contra ct or. ” 105 The Ur ena Court re cog nized lan gua ge in Bry ant v. Delmarva Po wer & Light Co. t o reach this con clus ion: “pr operty owne r doe s not v oluntari ly assume respons ibili ty for workpl ace safety by adv ising hi s indep endent contr actor of obser ved safety violat ions wher e the ind epende nt contrac tor is contr actua lly requi red to main tain wor kplace s afety.” 106 Thus, w hen the gener al contr acto r “obser ved unsa fe roofi ng prac tices” an d only re ported i t to t he inde pend ent contra ctor ’ s superv isor rat her than t he indivi dual w orkers d irec tly, the U re n a Court 103 Ur ena v. Capano Hom es, Inc., 901 A.2d 145, 153 (Del. Super. Ct. 2006), aff'd, 930 A.2d 877 (Del. 20 07) (quoting Figgs v. Bel levue H oldi ng Co., 652 A.2d 1084, 1092 (Del. Super. Ct.1994)). 104 Id. 105 Id. 106 Id. (quotin g Bryant v. Delmarva Pow er & Light Co., 1995 WL 653987, at *1 1 (Del. Supe r. Ct. Oc t. 2, 199 5))

19 held t he “ c ond uct [was] inc onsis tent with voluntar y assump tio n of re spo nsibi lity of safe ty.” 107 The ide a th at m ere ly obser ving an d repor ting safety viola tions i s not enough to ass ume safet y respo nsibili ties exte nd s bey ond ju st U re n a and Br yant. 108 Simila r to the f irst e xcepti on, pe rfor min g safety i nspectio ns for the p urpo se of ensur ing contra ct compl iance is n ot eno ugh to reach t he thresh old o f assum ing respo nsibil ity for sa fety. 109 T he same can be said for re tain ing s hut dow n power. 110 A lack th e of gene ral contra ctor ’ s employ ees or re presenta tives pre sence on a j obsite at the tim e of injur y can also be cons idered. 111 In Cooke v. Seasi de Exte riors, the Court s tated the nec essar y con sider at ion is whether “ther e is [a] ca usal rel ationsh ip in wha t the ge neral con tractor did as far a s safety sugge stions and the r easons f or Plaint iff's inju ry. ” 112 Give n the f act s of this ca se, there is a g enuine di spute as to w hethe r Nex ius volun tarily as sumed res ponsibi lit y for sa fety of the job site. In first loo king a t the contra ct, the la nguage is c lear V elex is r espo nsible for the sa fe workin g condit ions of th e jobsi te. Howe ver, a ques tio n arise s when l ooki ng at the cond uct of Ne xius. T o begin, Nexius c reate d and imp lemente d the cu stomize d JS As for eac h jobsi te whic h were used “[t ]o ide ntify the scop e, identif y any haza rds, and the n what 107 Id. 108 Rafferty v. Centur y Eng'g, Inc. Int 'l, 2002 WL 480958, at *8 (Del. S uper. Ct. M ar. 22, 2002); see also Cooke v. Seaside Exteriors, 2006 WL 3308206, at *4 (Del. Super. Ct. N ov. 10, 2006). 109 Id. at *8. 110 Id. at *8 - 9. 111 Cooke v. Se aside Ex teri ors, 2006 W L 330 8206, at *4 (De l. S uper. Ct. Nov. 10, 200 6). 112 Id.

20 contr ols woul d be im plemente d to contr ol tho se haz ards. ” Nexius a lso deci ded t o emplo y only a r emot e safety of fice r for th e Bet hany B eac h j obsite as o pposed t o an on - site one. F urther, Nexi us em ployee s ha d shut dow n author ity and c ould co ndu ct safe ty au dits on V elex j obsit es. Fi nally, Davi d Hall, the Se nior Directo r of Safety for Ne xius, stated “ [Nexius ] oversaw safety f or V ele x operat ions.” While each of these f acts al one may not creat e liabi lity, in th e aggrega te there i s a ge nuine di spute as to wheth er Nexi us volun taril y assume d safet y resp onsibi liti es for the job site t hat a trie r of f act m ust decid e. 113 Accor dingly, th e Mot ion for S ummary J udgment is DENIE D o n this basis a s well. THE MYNDCO MOTI ON Myndc o has als o fil ed a Motio n for S ummary Judgment. Li ke Ne x ius, Myndc o a rg u es that the y owe d no dut y to Dece dents. S pecif ically, the y conte nd Myndc o had no ov ersig ht dutie s rela ting to the work, the w or ksite, or t he safety there in, a nd the y ha d no dut y to e nsure t he Decede nts wer e ful ly tra ined a nd cert ified to ope rate the MEW P. Pla in tif fs res pon d tha t My ndco, as th e t raining arm of the Infin iux grou p of enti ties, ha d a duty o f care t o ens ure Deced ents r ece ived their fu ll train ing and a ny de legat ion of tha t traini ng was ne gligent. 114 113 Plai ntiffs have concede d that they are not relyi ng on the pos sess ory control over t he premi ses during wor k excepti on. 114 Plaint iffs conc eded a t ora l ar gument that they were not making c laims regar ding oversite of t he work, works ite, or safety. The claims versus My ndco are limited to th e training allegatio ns.

21 In the i nstant ca se, the re cor d is rep lete with e vidence tha t Myndco w as the desi gnate d traini ng a rm of the gr oup of ent ities at i ssue. Dav id Hal l, the sen ior direc tor of safety a t the time of t he accide nt, note d that My ndc o was esta bli she d as a separate enti ty to train a ll new - hire pe rsonnel. Mr. Fraz ier also test ified tha t Myndc o was “ resp onsible in the Inf iniux f amil y to pro vide the aeria l lif t certifi cation train ing.” Not o nly t hat, but D eceden ts in this case re ceived thei r initial onboar ding train in g from Myndco, includi ng “OSHA 10, Bloo dborne P athogens A w are ness, Compe tent Cl imber & R escuer, Com pete nt Rigge r, and R F A war ene ss tr ain ings an d certi ficatio ns ” and t he classr oom/thea trica l part o f the aer ial lift tr ai ning. Beca use this acc ident i nvolv ed an aerial lif t, there i s a foreseeable ris k of harm created by a pote ntia l breach of Myn dco’ s duty to trai n Nexi us person nel. Defe nda nt Myndco e ssen tially cla ims t hat they ha d no dut y to fully tr ain Deceden ts or ensure Deceden ts comple ted their trai ning beca use it w as no t their respo nsibil ity t o fini sh t he las t part of th e MEWP trainin g. Instead, they asse rt t hat V elex wa s in char ge of the ha nds - on ae ria l lift trai ning due t o Covid re str ictions at the time - a fact di sputed b y Plaint if fs. Eve n if it was tr ue that it wa s not Mynd co’ s respo nsibil ity t o com plete th e sec ond ha lf of the aer ial lift traini ng, that does n ot relie ve Myn dco from their duty of reas onab le care in ca rrying out the trainin g as the sole pur pose of Mynd co’ s exi stence was to tra in Ne xius per sonnel.

22 Having under taken the duty to t rain D ec e dents, Mynd co had a duty to e nsure that d ece dents wer e prop erly and c omplete ly trai ned. There ar e iss ues of fac t whic h prec lude summary j udgmen t. Those iss ues of fact i nclude b ut are not l imite d to: 1) wheth er t he in - cla ss trainin g was ad equa te; 2) w heth er t he in - c lass and ha nds on traini ng was actua lly bifurc ate d and, if so, w hether the dec ision to b ifurc ate the train ing was re asonable; and 3) whethe r it was re aso nable for Myndco t o rely on V elex to c omplete the tra ining u nder the circum stance s of thi s case. In short, Myndc o had a duty and w hether i t brea ched tha t dut y is an issue t hat m ust be deter min ed by a trier of fact. Accor dingly, the Mot ion for Summa ry Jud gment as to P lain tiff s ’ negli genc e claim s aga inst Myn dco is DENI ED. 115 CONTRIB UTOR Y RECKLESS NESS AND W ANTONNESS 116 In the w ritten su bmissio ns only Su nbelt ra ised the De fen se of Contr ibutor y Reck less ness. A t oral ar gumen t Ne xius and M yndco i ndic ate d tha t t hey w ere also re ly ing o n this d efense. In shor t, Contri butory Rec klessne ss is an iss ue of fact an d give n the f act s of this cas e, the issu e will b e left to t he jury. “ Contr ibutory wantonn ess exis ts when a plaintif f, w ith no i nten t to caus e harm, pe rforms a n act whic h is so unrea sonable a nd dan gerous tha t he eithe r know s 115 Myndco als o move d for sum mary ju dgment on the punitiv e damages iss ue. P laint if fs conceded at oral ar gument that al l cla ims fo r punitive damage s were not being pursue d and the Court granted summa ry judgment o n the punit ive damages claims at oral argument. 116 Contribut ory Reckles snes s and Contri butory W antonnes s are t he same thing.

23 or sh oul d know that the re is a n emine nt like lihood of harm w hich can r es ult. ” 117 “ State d dif fer ent ly, ‘ [a] p laintif f who e ngages in some o vert act that reck lessly expo ses him self to a know n danger is gu ilt y of contr ibutor y want onne ss. ’” 118 “ Unde r Dela ware co mmon law, contri butory rec klessne ss o pera tes as a com ple te bar to rec ove ry for ne gligence. ” 119 Contri butory rec klessne ss is a fac t - based deter mination typicall y reserv ed for th e jury. 120 This deci sio n should only be take n away f rom the tr ier of fa ct when, “ on the stipula ted facts, De cede nt's c onduct w as so egre gious t hat it cons titutes r eckl essnes s as a m atter of law, and n o reasona ble juror c ou ld find othe rwise.” 121 The C ourt is not pr epared to say tha t De cedents actio ns const ituted con tributor y reckle ss ness a s a matter of law. T h at is a ques tion for the jury. A s t here are ques tions of fa ct reg ard ing whether de fendants conduct arise s to cont ributory r eckle ssness, sum mary j udgm ent is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERE D. /s/ Fr ancis J. J one s, Jr. Franc is J. Jone s, Jr., J udge cc: File & ServeXpr ess 117 Staats by Staats v. Law re nce, 576 A.2d 663, 6 67 - 68 (Del. S uper. Ct. 1990), aff'd, 582 A.2d 936 (De l. 199 0) (citing Gushen v. Pe nn Cent. T ransp. Co., 280 A.2d 708, 7 10 (Del. 1971)). 118 Nor than v. Thomas, 2024 WL 2974 271, at *3 (Del. Super. Ct. June 12, 2024), a ff'd, 339 A.3d 1226 (Del. 2025) (quotin g Staats by Staats v. La wr ence, 576 A.2d 663, 668 (Del. Super. Ct. 1990), aff'd, 5 82 A.2d 936 (Del. 199 0)). 119 Id. (citing S taats, 576 A.2d 663.) 120 Id. at *2. 121 Id.