Ford v. Pike Electric, LLC

Filing 33

OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED that dft Pike Electric, LLC's 23 motion for summary judgment is denied. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 3/31/2021. (bes, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
ALICIA McDANIEL FORD,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
PIKE ELECTRIC, LLC,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:19cv146-MHT
(WO)

OPINION AND ORDER
This

is

a

state-law

tort

action

arising

from

a

motorcycle crash suffered by plaintiff Alicia Ford at
an intersection where defendant Pike Electric, LLC, was
conducting repair work on a utility pole.

Ford claims

that the company’s employees negligently or wantonly
left gravel in the road, leading to her crash.

She

seeks

for

her

court

has

compensatory

injuries

resulting

and
from

punitive
the

damages

crash.

The

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity).
This

suit

is

now

before

the

court

Electric’s motion for summary judgment.

on

Pike

“A party may

move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or

defense--or the part of each claim or defense--on which
summary

judgment

is

sought.

The

court

shall

grant

summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Civ. P. 56(a).

Fed. R.

To determine whether a genuine factual

dispute exists, the court must view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw
all reasonable inferences in favor of that party.

See

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
475

U.S.

574,

587

(1986).

Summary

judgment

is

appropriate “[w]here the record taken as a whole could
not

lead

a

rational

non-moving party.”

trier

of

fact

to

find

for

the

Id.

The crux of the dispute in this case is factual.
Pike Electric argues that it did not leave gravel in
the road, and it supplies deposition testimony of an
employee and other witnesses to support its position.
See, e.g., Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 23) at 4,
2

8.

Ford counters that Pike Electric did leave gravel

in the road, and she supplies witness affidavits and
deposition testimony supporting her allegation.

See,

e.g., Response to Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 25)
at

2-4.

Both

sides

point

to

photographs

of

the

intersection, and they dispute which of the photographs
accurately depict the exact location of the accident.
See

Motion

for

Summary

Judgment

(Doc.

23)

at

6-8;

Response to Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 25) at
3-4, 11.
In other words, there exists a genuine dispute as
to an issue of material fact.

Indeed, it appears the

central dispute in this case is one of material fact:
whether Pike Electric left gravel in the road at the
place

where

Ford’s

crash

occurred.

Pike

Electric’s

position in its motion for summary judgment amounts to
an argument that the court should set aside or not
credit Ford’s evidence on that issue.

But a reasonable

trier of fact evaluating the totality of the evidence
3

could

find

therefore

for

either

inappropriate,

party.
and

Summary
Pike

judgment

Electric’s

is

motion

will be denied.
* * *
Accordingly,

it

is

ORDERED

that

defendant

Pike

Electric, LLC’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 23)
is denied.
DONE, this the 31st day of March, 2021.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4