Dupree v. Grutzmacher et al

Filing 51

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 39 is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 6/29/17. (CAR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
DANIEL DUPREE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MITCHEL GRUTZMACHER, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 4:15 CV 1911 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Daniel Dupree brings this personal injury action for injuries he
allegedly sustained when Defendant Mitchel Grutzmacher’s truck hit Dupree’s
snow plow on the interstate.

Dupree brings a negligence claim against

Grutzmacher and a vicarious liability claim against Grutzmacher’s employer,
Southern Cal Transport Co. Defendants move for partial summary judgment on
punitive damages, arguing Dupree has not and cannot produce evidence that would
support submitting the issue of punitive damages to a jury. After careful review of
the record under the relevant standards,1 it appears the evidence may warrant

1

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, I must view the facts and inferences from the
facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v.
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). The moving party has the burden of establishing
that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Once the moving party has met this burden, the nonmoving party
may not rest on the allegations in its pleadings, 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(c)(1), (e).

submitting the issue of punitive damages. As a result, the issue is not appropriate
for summary judgment, and I will deny Defendants’ motion.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment [39] is DENIED.

RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 29th day of June, 2017.

2