 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Walls v. Jacob North Printing Co.3/15/2000
oving of the ladder was the activity that would give rise to liability.
The majority has determined that there is evidence that representatives of defendants both moved and destabilized the ladder. The evidence introduced on the issue of moving the ladder is unclear, confusing and contradictory both as to who allegedly moved the ladder and if it was actually moved. Even if there is substantial evidence to support a finding the ladder was moved, there is not substantial evidence to support a finding the defendant's conduct caused Michel to fall.
The ladder from which Michel fell apparently belonged to Michel's employer. There was evidence it was initially placed and tied to the chimney by Michel and his crew. There is evidence the ladder was used by others after it was placed against the Jewell building. There is no evidence as to the time the ladder was used in relationship to the time defendants were alleged to have moved it. There is no evidence the ladder was inspected following its being placed. Michel was not aware that the position of the ladder had changed when he stepped on it. Ratcliff said the ladder collapsed. Michel is unsure of what the ladder did when he stepped on it.
In addressing plaintiffs' challenges I find Hasselman v. Hasselman, 596 N.W. 2d 541 (Iowa 1999) controlling. The majority calls Hasselman an exceptional case and distinguishes it from the case at bar by advancing plaintiffs here presented direct and circumstantial evidence defendant negligently moved and destabilized the ladder. I disagree. The plaintiff in Hasselman sought damages after a ladder he was climbing fell. Id. at 543. The court there noted that the deficiency in the inference made as to what happened still left the jury to speculate on the cause of the ladder's failure. Id. at 546. The court further noted that it was just as likely under the evidence that the ladder could have failed for a reason other than the one the plaintiff alleged. See id. The court specifically said, "When a jury is left to speculate on whether the defendant's conduct in fact caused the plaintiff's damages, the evidence is insufficient to support a finding of proximate cause." Id. See also Gerst, 549 N.W.2d at 818-19 (the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants where plaintiffs' evidence required the jury to speculate as to whether the plaintiffs' damages would not have occurred but for the defendants' conduct); Blackhawk Bldg. Sys., 428 N.W.2d at 291 (there the court said, "A jury cannot be left to speculate, but rather, must be provided with facts affording a reasonable basis for ascertaining the loss.").
There is insufficient evidence to support a finding of proximate cause with respect to the defendants' alleged negligence. It is just as likely under the evidence the ladder could have failed for a reason other than the one alleged by plaintiffs and as the district court noted, there was no testimony or circumstances that indicated the ladder fell because of something that happened when it was moved back. Nor was there testimony to indicate it fell or moved or collapsed because of the position in which it was placed. Not mentioned by the majority was the fact Ratcliff said it folded because it wasn't latched. The fact finder would be left to speculate on whether anything the defendants did with respect to the placement of the ladder caused it to move and fall or whether it folded because it wasn't latched. The district court was correct in dismissing the claims against both defendants on summary judgment.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|