Lisa Maeyer is a member of the firm’s Casualty Department, where she focuses her practice on the defense of general liability matters including premises and automobile liability, in addition to assisting clients in matters involving insurance coverage, Personal Injury Protection (PIP) litigation, and Fraud/Special Investigation.
Lisa graduated cum laude from Gettysburg College with a B.A. in English and Writing, with honors, and a minor in Philosophy. Lisa earned her juris doctor from Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law in 2022, completing her J.D. with a litigation concentration. During law school, Lisa was a member and then executive director of the Moot Court Board.
Lisa clerked with the firm the summer of 2021 before her third year of law school, continued as a law graduate after graduating in 2022. She is admitted to practice in the state of Delaware.
Thought Leadership
Case Law Alerts
Delaware Superior Court Denies Summary Judgment in Snow and Ice Slip-and-Fall; No Expert Required and Causation May Be Inferred
July 20, 2026
In Mangle v. Inspirit Senior Living Dover Aid II Opco LLC, the Delaware Superior Court denied summary judgment to both a property owner and its snow-removal contractor in a slip-and-fall case arising from snowy and icy conditions in a parking lot. The plaintiff, an outpatient physical therapist working on-site, slipped while walking through a lot covered in snow and alleged that the defendants negligently failed to remediate the condition. The snow-removal contractor argued that it owed no duty because there was no evidence it performed snow and ice removal prior to the fall. The court found a genuine dispute of fact on that issue, noting that while the plaintiff testified no remediation appeared to have occurred, the contractor produced an invoice showing services performed within a timeframe that included the date of the incident. This created triable issues regarding whether the contractor performed, or should have performed, services before the fall and whether any such work was done reasonably. The court also rejected the contractor’s argument that the plaintiff’s claims failed for lack of expert testimony. Relying on Delaware precedent, the court held that expert testimony is not required where the alleged dangerous condition is within the common understanding of a lay juror. The presence of snow and ice—and whether it was reasonably addressed—was deemed the type of condition that a jury could evaluate without expert assistance. With respect to the property owner, the court declined to grant summary judgment based on the plaintiff’s inability to identify the precise cause of her fall. Although the plaintiff could not say definitively whether she slipped on snow or ice, she testified that the area was snow-covered and slippery and that ice likely existed beneath the snow. The court held that this circumstantial evidence was sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to infer that a hazardous condition caused the fall. Finally, the court rejected the defendants’ “open and obvious” argument at the summary judgment stage. Because the plaintiff alleged not only a failure to warn, but also a failure to remediate, the court found that the obviousness of the condition went to comparative fault rather than serving as a complete bar to recovery. Accordingly, the case was allowed to proceed to the jury on all issues.
Case Law Alerts
Delaware Supreme Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Slip-and-Fall Case Based on Contradicted Plaintiff Testimony
April 1, 2026
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of a shopping center owner and its snow removal contractor, holding that a plaintiff cannot rely on self-contradictory testimony—especially when refuted by objective evidence—to survive summary judgment. In this case, the plaintiff alleged that he slipped on black ice in a parking lot and testified that snow, ice, and active plowing were present. The defendants presented maintenance records showing prior treatment, meteorological data confirming no precipitation after that treatment, and surveillance footage establishing that the lot was clear and dry with no snow removal activity at the time of the incident. Relying on Ridgeway v. Acme Markets, Inc., the court reiterated that defendants must take reasonable steps to address snow and ice, but once they present evidence of reasonable care, the burden shifts to the plaintiff. The court found that the defendants met that burden, while the plaintiff failed to create a genuine issue of material fact, relying only on inconsistent testimony directly contradicted by video evidence. This decision reinforces a strong path to summary judgment in winter slip-and-fall cases where defendants can pair documentation with objective evidence to negate alleged hazardous conditions.
