 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Tucker v. Action Equipment and Scaffold Co.12/30/1997
der Meers.
In the present case, Tucker and Clark expend much effort applying the Meers test to the facts of this case. They explain that a material factual issue remains regarding whether the particular scaffolding required for the Shrine project was a highly specialized necessity that Malco's employees would not normally carry out. Tucker and Clark's emphasis is misplaced because according to our Conclusion above, the Meers test is not applicable in this matter.
Applying the above analysis in this case, we first note that this is a construction case. Next, the record indicates that Action is a licensed scaffolding contractor pursuant to NRS chapter 624, rendering its services pursuant to a construction subcontract. Further, it was performing the very services for which it was licensed--scaffolding--when Tucker and Clark were injured. Therefore, Action is immune from suit under NIIA as a matter of law. Accordingly, no genuine issues of material fact exist regarding workplace immunity. See NRS 616.262(3), NRS 616.560(1) (a), NRS 624.020 and other relevant sections of NRS chapters 616 and 624.
We conclude that Action is immune from suit by Tucker and Clark. As such, the fact issue as to whether the scaffolding used here was highly specialized or part of Malco's normal work is of no consequence. Since no genuine issues of material fact exist, dismissal was proper. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment.
Shearing,C.J.
Rose, J.
Young, J.
Maupin, J.
I concur in the result only:
Springer, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Nevada Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|