 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Maggard v. Conagra Foods2/11/2005
in the fact that Razak's assistance may have precluded others from carrying the stretcher without tiring, since Razak could not know what the others were capable of and Maggard and his partner chose to proceed with the persons available. Razak had no duty to choose the people who would carry the stretcher. Thus, we do not perceive any active negligence by Razak or Conagra Foods.
The duties associated with transporting the patient were Maggard's. He testified in a deposition that his duties included transporting patients to the hospital. Maggard had been to the Cook Family Foods facility before. He testified that it was up to the individual emergency crew to decide whether to get help in carrying a stretcher up and down stairs. He said that if the crew felt that there was insufficient manpower at a site, they would have the fire department help them. Thus, it was for Maggard and his partner to decide how to transport the patient and whether to rely on non-professional assistance, which they did in this case.
The trial court correctly determined that Maggard's proof did not show Conagra Foods owed him a duty of care or that a duty of care was breached by Conagra Foods. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the Carter Circuit Court which granted the motion for summary judgment.
ALL CONCUR.
|