 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Arnold v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.5/18/1999
cifically provided that the Air Force is involved in continuing research to determine the impact on the environment of sonic booms. Contractor also presented the affidavit of one of its employees, an engineer whose specialty was aerospace vibration and acoustics. The engineer stated the information contained in the fact sheet was consistent with his knowledge of sonic booms as well as information contained in reported studies and other recognized resources on the subject.
We believe contractor presented sufficient evidence that the government was as aware of potential adverse effects from supersonic flights as contractor. Contractor has made a sufficient prima facie showing of a right to summary judgment based on the government contractor defense.
C. Landowner's Burden to Contradict Contractor's Motion
When the movant has made the prima facie showing required by Rule 74.04(c), the burden shifts to the non-movant to respond, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in Rule 74.04, setting forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. ITT, 854 S.W.2d at 381. If the non-movant cannot contradict the showing of the movant, judgment is properly entered against the non-movant because the movant has already established a right to judgment as a matter of law. Id.
Landowner presented no evidence in response to contractor's motion for summary judgment. Therefore, landowner has failed to carry his burden to show a genuine dispute as to a material fact. Point two is denied.
The trial court did not err in entering summary judgment in favor of contractor. The judgment is affirmed.
Separate Opinion: None
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|