 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Matthews v. Horseshoe Casino9/6/2005
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
DISPOSITION AFFIRMED: 09/06/2005
BEFORE LEE, P.J., IRVING AND CHANDLER, JJ.
. LouisMatthews and Roosevelt Jones (Appellants) filed an action against Horseshoe Casino, alleging multiple damages as a result of injuries sustained while working on an electrical device which was owned by Horseshoe. In response, Horseshoe filed a motion for summary judgment which was subsequently granted by the trial court. Aggrieved, Appellants now appeal the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Horseshoe.
. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Therefore, we affirm the trial judge's ruling.
FACTS
.In July 2000, appellants were injured while working on an electrical device at the Horseshoe Casino in Tunica, Mississippi. At the time of the accident, Appellants were employees of A & B Electric, a subcontractor of White Construction Company (White). White had been retained as an independent contractor by Horseshoe to perform the particular project. After the accident, Appellants received workers' compensation benefits which were provided through their employment with A & B Electric.
. In December 2002, Appellants filed an action against Horseshoe and White seeking damages for their injuries. In response, Horseshoe and White each filed summary judgment motions denying liability, and White was subsequently dismissed from the suit due to the exclusivity provisions of the workers' compensation statute. Appellants, however, continued to maintain that Horseshoe was responsible for their injuries. A hearing was held on Horseshoe's summary judgment motion, and the trial judge entered an order finding that Appellants failed to prove that Horseshoe maintained control over the work project that gave rise to their injuries
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUE
Standard of Review
. The law is well established with respect to the grant or denial of summary judgment motions. A summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." M. R. C. P. Rule 56 (c). "All that is required of an opposing party to survive a motion for summary judgment is to establish a genuine issue of material fact by the means available under the rule." Lowery v. Guaranty Bank and Trust Company, 592 So. 2d 79, 81 (Miss. 1991) (citing Galloway v. Traveler's Insurance Co., 515 So. 2d 678, 682 (Miss. 1987)). "In determining whether the entry of summary judgment appropriate, [appellate courts] review the judgment de novo, making [their] own determination on the motion, separate and apart from that of the trial court." Lowery, 592 So. 2d at 81. "The evidentiary matters are viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Id. "If after this examination, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment is affirmed, but if after examining the evidentiary matters there is a genuine issue of material fact, the grant of summary judgment is reversed." Lowery, 592 So. 2d at 81(citing Newell v. Hinton, 556 So. 2d 1037, 1041 (Miss. 1990)).
. Appellants first contend that the trial court erred in striking the affidavit of Damon Wall, an associate professor of electrical engineering at the University of Mississippi. They contend that Wall's affidavit was based upon his personal knowledge and provided a sufficient expert opinion as to the c
Page 1 2 3 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|