Stanley v. Cottrell, Inc.

Filing 185

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Duty, Contract, Specifications, Failure to Warn and Statute of Limitations, [Doc. No. 56], is denied. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Autrey on 2/7/13. (KXS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
LUTHER STANLEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
COTTRELL, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:10CV1505 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment on Duty, Contract, Specifications, Failure to Warn and Statute of
Limitations, [Doc. No. 56]. Plaintiff opposes the Motion. For the reasons set forth
below, the Motion is denied.
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 issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine
issue of material fact and if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law. 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 is a slip and fall on a car
hauler case wherein Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s rig was unreasonably
dangerous and as such, Defendant is liable for the injuries Plaintiff sustained as a
result of his fall.
Defendant contends it is entitled to summary judgment on the issues of its
-2-

duty to Plaintiff, contract specifications, failure to warn and the statute of
limitations contained in its warranty.
Based on the entire record, the Defendant is not entitled to summary
judgment. Considering all of the facts, together with inferences to be drawn
therefrom, it appears that genuine issues of material fact remain. Summary
judgment is therefore, not appropriate at this time. Accordingly, the Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment, [Doc. No. 56], is denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment on Duty, Contract, Specifications, Failure to Warn and Statute of
Limitations, [Doc. No. 56], is denied.
Dated this 7th day of February, 2013.

_______________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-