 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Vaughn v. Daniels Company11/4/2002
FOR PUBLICATION
OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION
Case Summary
This is an appeal from the granting of summary judgment in favor of the Defendants in a suit brought by Stephen Vaughn for injuries he sustained as a result of an accident while installing a pipe during the construction of a coal plant. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Facts
Briefly summarized, the designated facts are that in 1995, Solar Sources, Inc. ("Solar") contracted The Daniels Company ("Daniels") to design, procure, and construct a coal preparation plant. Daniels in turn contracted with Trimble Engineers and Constructors, Inc. ("Trimble"). Trimble was responsible for the construction of the plant, including the assembly of three coal sumps, one of which was a heavy media sump. Daniels prepared the blueprints and specifications for the sump, which was manufactured by a company in West Virginia that is not a party in this case.
Vaughn was employed by Trimble as a pipe fitter. When construction of the plant was approximately halfway complete, Vaughn was injured in an accident, which occurred when two Trimble employees asked Vaughn to assist them in bringing a pipe in for installation on the sump. Vaughn climbed onto the sump, and the pipe was maneuvered through a hole in the wall of the plant with a forklift and raised to the level of the sump. Trimble employees wrapped a chain around the pipe, and the forklift pulled away, leaving the pipe supported by the chain alone. As the men maneuvered the pipe, a bolt that had braced the chain gave way, and the pipe slipped, pulling Vaughn off the sump and throwing him fifteen feet to the floor. Vaughn had removed his safety belt just prior to climbing onto the sump.
On December 11, 1997, Vaughn filed a complaint for personal injury damages against Daniels and Solar sounding in products liability, negligence, and nuisance. Two years later, Daniels filed a summary judgment motion. In March 2000, Vaughn filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint, which was granted. After a hearing on the summary judgment motion, the trial court entered an order denying the motion except as to the nuisance claim.
In May 2001, Solar filed a motion for summary judgment. Thereafter, Daniels filed a second summary judgment motion. After Vaughn filed responses to both motions, the trial court conducted a hearing. In October, the trial court issued an order granting Daniels' motion for summary judgment, Solar's motion for summary judgment, and Solar's motion to strike a paragraph from an expert's affidavit. Vaughn now appeals.
Issues
Vaughn raises several issues in his challenge to the entry of summary judgment, which we have reorganized and rephrased as:
I. whether an affidavit designated by him contains inadmissible evidence that should be stricken;
I. whether the trial court erroneously determined that he was not a foreseeable user or consumer of the sump pursuant to the Indiana Products Liability Act (the "Act");
III. whether the trial court erroneously determined that the sump was not defective or unreasonably dangerous under the Act;
IV. whether the trial court erroneously determined that he misused the sump and incurred the risk of injury under the Act; and
V. whether the trial court erroneously determined that Daniels and Solar did not owe or assume a duty toward him.
Analysis
Our analysis proceeds from the premise that summary judgment is a lethal weapon and courts must be ever mindful of its aims and targets and beware of overkill in its use. Bunch v. Tiwari, 711 N.E.2d 844, 847
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Indiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|