Taylor et al v. Cottrell, Inc. et al

Filing 355

OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Motions for Summary Judgment, [Doc. No.s 98, 99, 137,143, and146], are denied. 146 137 98 99 143 Signed by District Judge Henry E. Autrey on 2/10/14. (CLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
TIMMY A. TAYLOR and
DEBORAH TAYLOR,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
COTTRELL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
) No. 4:09CV536 HEA
)
)
)
)

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Cottrell, Inc.’s Motion for
Summary Judgment on Counts VII through XII on Failure of Proximate Cause,
[Doc. No. 98], Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts VIII through XII
Pursuant to Indiana’s Incurred Risk Doctrine and Consumer Expectation Test,
Motion for Summary Judgment on Duty, Contract Specifications, Failure to Warn
and Statue of Limitations on Warranty Claims, [Doc. No. 143], Motion for
Summary Judgment on Disclaimer of Warranty Grounds, [Doc. No. 146], and
Defendant Auto Handling Corp.’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts V,
VII, XI and XIII, [Doc. No. 137]. The Court has considered the arguments and
memoranda, and finds as follows:
Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary

judgment may be granted only if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ. P. Rule 56; Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 322 (1986). Once the moving party has met this burden, the nonmoving party
may not rest on the allegations in its pleading but by affidavit or other evidence
must set forth specific facts showing that a genuine issue of material fact exists.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). In determining summary judgment, the facts and the
inferences from those facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475
U.S. 574, 587 (1986). At the summary judgment stage, courts do not weigh the
evidence and decide the truth of the matter, but rather determine if there is a
genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. Rule 56(c) mandates the entry
of summary judgment against a party, if after adequate time for discovery, that
party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an essential
element of the case that the party will have the burden of proving at trial. Celotex,
477 U.S. at 322-23
The court has reviewed the record before it. This case involves alleged
-2-

injuries on a car hauler wherein Plaintiff Timmy Taylor alleges that Cottrell’s rig
was unreasonably dangerous and Auto Handling’s employees failed to properly
maintain the rig. Plaintiffs claim Defendants are liable for the injuries Plaintiff
Timmy Taylor sustained as a result of his falls.
Defendants contend they are entitled to summary judgment on several
issues: duty to Plaintiff, contract specifications, failure to warn and the statute of
limitations contained in its warranty, disclaimer of warranty, proximate cause, the
Indiana incurred risk doctrine and Consumer expectation test.
Based on the entire record, the Defendants are not entitled to summary
judgment. Considering all of the facts, together with inferences to be drawn
therefrom, it appears that genuine disputes of material fact remain. Summary
judgment is therefore, not appropriate at this time.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions for Summary
Judgment, [Doc. No.’s 98, 99, 137,143, and146], are denied.
Dated this 10th day of February, 2014.

_______________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-