 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Strong v. Wynne Outdoor Motorsports12/14/2005
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
This is an appeal from an order granting appellees Wynne Outdoor Motorsports, Inc., and American Suzuki Motor Corporation summary judgment against appellant Allie Strong in connection to an alleged defect in a motorcycle purchased by appellant. We affirm.
On June 18, 2001, appellant bought a Suzuki motorcycle from appellee Wynne Outdoor Motorsports. He started the motorcycle, rode it from the front of the dealership across the parking lot, and then paused to wait for the chance to pull into traffic. It is undisputed that the motorcycle appeared to be running normally at that time. When the traffic cleared, appellant put the motorcycle in gear, pulled onto the highway at full throttle, lost control of the motorcycle, and crashed onto the ground. Appellant suffered burns, scarring, and other injuries to his right arm, left elbow, right knee and leg, and back.
Appellant's insurance carrier declared the motorcycle a total loss and moved it to a salvage yard in Conway, Arkansas. Subsequently, in December 2001, appellant's attorney requested that Mr. Robert Handford, the owner of a local motorcycle shop, inspect the motorcycle. It was transported to his shop, where Mr. Handford discovered that one of the throttle cables had been pulled out of a recessed hole at the throttle cable junction, which would cause the motorcycle to constantly run at half throttle. He explained that it did not appear that the throttle cables had been tampered with, but he could not determine how or when the condition occurred. He found nothing wrong with the operation of the clutch on the motorcycle. He replaced the throttle cable and discarded the old one. The motorcycle was subsequently sold as salvage, and the appellees claim that they never had an opportunity to re-examine it.
On or about April 1, 2003, appellant filed suit against appellee Wynne Outdoor Motorsports to recover damages sustained as a result of the defective motorcycle supplied by it and later amended his complaint to add appellee American Suzuki, the manufacturer, as a defendant in the lawsuit. Prior to trial, appellees moved for summary judgment, claiming that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law because: (1) appellant could not prove the existence of a defect in the motorcycle that caused his damages, and (2) the motorcycle was unavailable for them to inspect. The trial court reviewed the pleadings and heard arguments from counsel. A letter opinion was issued on December 13, 2004, in which the trial court found that appellant had failed to produce any evidence of a defect in the motorcycle while in the control of either of the appellees as required by Ark. Code Ann. ยง 4-86-102. The trial court found that direct proof as to the defect did not exist and also that appellant failed to negate other possible causes of the accident by a preponderance of the evidence. On or about December 14, 2004, the trial court entered orders granting summary judgment in favor of both appellees.
On appeal, the standard of review from a grant of summary judgment is well established. Summary judgment is to be granted by a circuit court only when it is clear that there are no genuine issues of material fact to be litigated, and the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Ark. R. Civ. Pro. 56; see also Giles v. Harrington, Miller, Neihouse & Krug, __ Ark. __, __ S.W.3d __ (May 12, 2005). Once the moving party has established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the opposing party must meet proof with proof and demonstrate the existence of a material issue of fact. Giles, supra. On appellate review, this court determines if summary judgment was appropriate based on wh
Page 1 2 3 4 Arkansas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|