The Delaware Supreme Court recently ruled in Cantinca v. Fontana , download pdf file, on a statutory interpretation issue of first impression. Specifically, the issue was whether in a civil action for negligence, a state statute barred evidence of conduct that was claimed to constitute a violation of a county ordinance, which would be negligence per se. The trial court held that Section 6636 of Title 16 of the Delaware Code prevailed over a different standard in the county code. The court disagreed that the state provision preempted the counterpart in the New Castle County Code. In Delaware, the state and its political subdivisions are permitted to enact similar provisions and regulations as long as the two regulations do not conflict. Where a conflict exists between a state statute and a local ordinance, the statute must always prevail. However, the test for determining a conflict and preemption analysis is whether the state statute was intended to be exclusive. Legislative intent to make a state statute exclusive of any regulation of the same subject matter by a political subdivision may be expressed or implied. Unlike the trial court, the Supreme Court here determined that no exclusivity intent, either expressed or implied, can be found in the statute at issue. The county code allowed the admission of a smoke detector violation, but the state statute did not. In light of the Supreme Court determining that the two provisions could co-exist, the case was remanded to the trial court.