 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Barton v. Irish9/17/2002
Appellant Jill E. Barton initiated a personal injury action against respondents Robert Irish and Scott Passe. While on a trail ride on Irish's property on May 1, 1994, appellant was thrown from a horse and sustained serious injuries. Irish owned the horse appellant was riding and Passe, a family friend of Irish, had saddled the horse. Barton alleged that Irish and Passe were negligent because the saddle used on the horse that day was defective and contained sharp metal pieces that dug into the horse's back, causing it to throw her.
The district court granted summary judgment, ruling that there was no proof that the defective saddle was the proximate cause of Barton's injuries. Because we conclude that Passe owed Barton no legal duty as a matter of law, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to him. Because we conclude that, at least for purposes of summary judgment, Barton offered sufficient evidence to establish a cause of action for negligence against Irish, we reverse the grant of summary judgment to Irish and remand for trial.
DECISION
On appeal from summary judgment, an appellate court's duty is to determine whether any genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the district court erred in its application of the law. Cummings v. Koehnen, 568 N.W.2d 418, 420 (Minn. 1997). "A reviewing court must view evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted." Vetter v. Sec. Continental Ins. Co., 567 N.W.2d 516, 520 (Minn. 1997) (citation omitted). This court gives de novo review to a district court's determination of a purely legal question. Frost-Benco Elec. Assoc. v. Minn. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 358 N.W.2d 639, 642 (Minn. 1984). If the reviewing court finds that material issues of fact remain, however, the case is remanded to the district court without a decision on any legal issues. Caledonia Cmty. Hosp. v. Liebenberg Smiley Glotter & Assocs., 308 Minn. 255, 258-59, 248 N.W.2d 279, 281 (1976).
The district court granted summary judgment on the basis of lack of proof of causation.
A defendant in a negligence action is entitled to summary judgment when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on any of the four elements necessary for recovery: (1) the existence of a duty of care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) an injury , and (4) the breach of that duty being the proximate cause of the injury. Louis v. Louis, 636 N.W.2d 314, 318 (Minn. 2001). To be the proximate cause of an injury, a party's negligent act must be one which the party ought, in the exercise of ordinary care, to have anticipated was likely to result in injury to others, * * * though he could not have anticipated the particular injury which did happen. Lubbers v. Anderson, 539 N.W.2d 398, 401 (Minn. 1995) (quotations omitted).
The defendant's conduct must also be a "substantial factor in bringing about the injury ." Id. at 401-02 (quotation omitted). Proximate cause is typically a fact question to be determined by the trier of fact. Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett, 490 N.W.2d 108, 115 (Minn. 1992).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Barton, we conclude that she provided sufficient evidence to withstand a motion for summary judgment in favor of Irish. The record shows that Barton and her sister, Jennifer Van Brunt, were solely involved in breaking the horse that injured Barton and that the two had extensive experience with training and breaking horses. Although horses are generally unpredictable animals, this horse may not have been unpredictable to them, based on their experience with horses and their training with this particular horse. They both testified that the horse had never bucked
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|