 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cunningham v. Northland Insurance Co.9/14/2000
nd that the hunting club failed to meet its burden of proof that no material fact is in dispute, and the trial court erred in granting its motion for summary judgment based on Fulton, supra.
Finally, as noted above, the trial court found that even if the hunting club was negligent in not filling the hole, "the act of the plaintiff in attempting to drive up the hill, knowing there existed a tendency to tilt backwards, was an intervening cause of his injuries." We also find this determination to be inappropriate for a summary judgment proceeding. Inherent in this determination is the finding that plaintiff knew that if he lost control of his ATV, he may fall into the sinkhole and become injured. As stated, it is not known whether plaintiff knew the location of the sinkhole on the hill and appreciated the danger that existed.
Additionally, we do not believe that a determination can be made at this stage regarding whether one factor was a superceding intervening cause of plaintiff's accident. Typically, an intervening cause raises a question of concurrent cause, but it if it is determined that the intervening cause is a superceding intervening cause, the defendant is exonerated. LeBlanc v. Jani-King, Inc., 538 So.2d 1156, 1158 (La.App. 4 Cir.1989), writ denied, 542 So.2d 1390 (La.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 995, 110 S.Ct. 548, 107 L.Ed.2d 544 (1989). Further, questions of causation are usually issues for the factfinder's determination, but it is possible to determine these issues on summary judgment if reasonable minds could not differ. Fowler v. Roberts, 556 So.2d 1 (La.1989).
In this matter, we note at least three factors which may be found to be partially or fully at fault in causing plaintiff' accident: plaintiff's actions in attempting to ride up the hill, plaintiff's ATV's propensity to lift its front wheel when riding up a hill, and the existence of a large sinkhole on the hill and near the road plaintiff was attempting to navigate. Upon review, it is clear that reasonable minds could differ on these questions of causation. A determination of what factor(s) caused plaintiff's accident and subsequent injuries, and the apportionment of fault to the factor(s), can only be made by the trier of fact after a full trial on the merits.
Because we find that the two determinations made by the trial court (that the sinkhole was an "open and obvious danger" and that plaintiff's actions were an intervening cause of his injuries) were inappropriate for a summary judgment proceeding, we reverse the trial court's December 9, 1999 judgment and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs of this appeal are assessed against defendants/appellees.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|