 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Tlapechco v. Handler Corp.4/29/2005
Defendant Agustin Guzman, Individually and D/B/A Guzman Builders'
Motion for Summary Judgment GRANTED
Defendant Leroy Fisher's, Individually and D/B/A/ Leroy Fisher General
Contractor, Motion for Summary Judgment GRANTED
Procedural and Factual Context
On May 18, 2002, Plaintiff Leandro Tlapechco fell from a second story "bridge" or "catwalk" in a home under construction. Plaintiff was an employee of a painting contractor. Plaintiff filed this personal injury action against the builder and numerous general contractors and subcontractors, including Agustin Guzman, individually and d/b/a Guzman Builders (collectively "Guzman") and Leroy Fisher individually and d/b/a Leroy Fisher General Contractor (collectively "Fisher").The builder, Handler Corporation ("Handler"), filed a third party complaint against certain contractors, including Fisher.
Plaintiff alleged that all defendants were negligent in: (a) failing to supervise and oversee the "catwalk"; (b) failing to provide a safe working environment to Plaintiff, including proper railings or warning devices; (c) failing to warn Plaintiff of a dangerous condition; (d) failing to train employees to maintain the premises in a safe manner; and (e) failing to comply with the requirements of the BOCA code, New Castle County Code, and OSHA.
Handler hired Fisher as the rough framing carpenter. The contract required Fisher to install temporary safety railings on the "catwalk." Fisher subcontracted the rough carpentry work to Guzman.
It is undisputed that Handler signed a purchase order dated April 4, 2002, stating that the rough framing had been completed according to the terms and conditions of the contract. Neither Fisher nor Guzman returned to the job site after Handler approved payment on May 4, 2002. Several witnesses, including the homeowners, testified during depositions that the safety railings were actually built. There is no testimony contradicting the fact that as of April 4, 2002, the "catwalk" railings were in place.
It is also undisputed that at the time of Plaintiff's fall, there were no safety railings on the "catwalk." The primary liability issue in this case is why there were no railings on May 18, 2002. There is substantial dispute as to who removed the railings and when. One or more of the contractors may have removed the safety railings to perform their work. There is some suggestion that the railings may not have been adequately constructed.
Analysis
Fisher and Guzman have filed separate motions for summary judgment.
Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no material issues of fact in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The motions are supported by sworn testimony. Therefore, the burden shifts to the non-moving parties to demonstrate that there are material issues of fact.
The law in Delaware is clear that summary judgment shall be granted if the pleadings, depositions, admissions and affidavits demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Superior Court Civil Rule 56(e) requires that any adverse party's response must be by affidavit or in such a manner presenting evidence beyond mere allegations, setting forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Ordinarily, questions of negligence and causal relationships to an alleged injury are issues of fact for the jury. However, when undisputed facts compel only one conclusion, the Court has a duty to grant summary judgment.
Assuming the facts in the light most favor
Page 1 2 Delaware Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|