Motion of Summary Judgment

Motion of Summary Judgment

Summary Judgment allows the court to go into judgment in a case if the matter of facts is not in disagreement. The group stirring the summary judgment is at liberty to judgment as law states. In order to write summary judgment parties rarely, specify to the accurate matters, in result agree to present the case. In addition, a number of facts argued, the court is obligated to decide if declaration of the argued facts is essential to the court case. If as a result, a cross-examination is vital to make up mind on the argument. Nevertheless, if the court decides that there are no authentic matters of substance fact, then the court might go into summary judgment beyond the opposition of a party and keep away from the cost and time of a trial.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets the summary judgment, but the courts fail to use summary judgment as the federal rules of civil procedure anticipated. According to Judge Schwarzer William, summary judgment practice is overwhelmed by uncertainty and confusion. For many years, notions have developed that court cases are unwilling to go for summary judgment. Courts in the district level are unwilling to give summary judgment, while the courts of appeals are unwilling to support summary judgments. Research findings show that summary judgment movements filed in roughly 18 percent are civil cases. In most instances, common summary judgment motions are by defendants other than plaintiffs. In the recent years, records show a huge decrease of cases terminated by summary judgment. Following conclusions by inferior courts have aimed at correcting the feeling that summary judgment is perceived with disapproval.

Summary Judgment standard Argument

Premises Liability

Case Law 1:

Issue:

In this case, the issue is whether the owner of the premises was liable for the slipping and falling of the customer.

Brief Answer:

No, the premises owner was not liable for the slipping and falling of the customer. The customer slept on the staircases outside the premises. It is not the fault of the premises owner that the customer fell, but the customer’s carelessness while clamping the wet stairs made him slip. The premises owner did not make the stairs wet, it was as result of rain.

Facts:

The stairs were wet due to the rains. The customer stood outside the store waiting for the premises to open. The rains made his feet wet, and floor was wet so anyone walking up the stairs had to be careful not to slip and fall.

Analysis:

In this case, the burden was not met. It appeared that the injuries resulted from customer’s negligence. In addition, the court felt that the injuries were from some independent cause.

In the Rawls v. Hochschild case, the premises owner is not liable for the customer’s slip despite that fact that it occurred in his premise. The premises floor might be slippery and the customer’s shoes were wet due to the rain outside. It is rather obvious that on a slippery floor, one can fall down if he is not careful. It was the customer’s obligation to walk carefully to avoid slipping on the floor. The court’s judgment was fair to rule the case in favor of the premises owner because it was the customer’s faults to slip in the premises.

Case Law 2:

Issue:

In this case, there was negligence since in the maintenance of the magazine racks stationed outside the restaurant. The patron hurt her ankle against the magazines rack near the door of the restaurant. The complainant’s case was irrelevant to the court because after investigations, the court found out that the rack was located in a well-illumined position.

Brief Answer:

The court found the restaurant’s owner innocent. The court determined that the rack was purposely located in a well-illumined, conspicuous position, to attract attention and assist in the sale of the merchandise located thereon. The court recognized the well-established rule of law that a merchant was entitled to use his discretion in the selection of the equipment to display his goods.

Facts:

The magazine rack was placed outside the entrance of the restaurant; a strategic position to display the merchandise on the rack. In fact, if the patron was keen when getting into the restaurant, the magazine could have not hurt her ankle.

Analysis:

The Maryland court proved that the merchandiser had its magazines rack well located at the entrance of the store. The plaintiff was unable to give enough proof of the case.

In Evans v. Hot Shoppes, The patron was just involved in a minor accident, but she did not accept this fact. People have a behavior of blaming others for their careless mistakes. In this case, the patron was careless because she did not look carefully to check where she was stepping hence she hit her ankle against the magazine rack. The court acknowledged the well-recognized law that the premise owner was at liberty to utilize his preference in the assortment of the gear to exhibit his merchandise. The complainant did not give enough evidence to convince the court that the magazine rack outside the restaurant’s door hurt her uncle to tie the case to the the restaurant’s owner.

Case Law 3:

Issue:

In this case, the customer slipped and fell on the liquid near the checkouts. The case issue was about negligence by the storeowner. The floor of the store was wet and the court was to prove if the store had mode of operation.

Brief answer:

The customer counted on an appeal that the motion for summary judgment not granted. This was not because she produced sufficient evidence to raise a jury question as to whether the store had either actual or constructive knowledge of the defective condition that caused her injury.

Facts:

The floor was wet causing the customer to slip and fall. The Maryland law has a mode of operation rule that made the court reject the mode of operation.

Analysis:

The case was tried on the issue of negligence alone. A motion of judgment was granted to the owner of the store since the plaintiff failed to prove the store’s owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the wet floor.

In Maans v. Giant of Maryland, the court’s judgment was fair, but the complainant was not satisfied with the jury. The complainant made a mistake of ignoring the constructive or pre-injury notice wetness on the floor. In this instance, the court had no option but to make judgment in favor of the store. Despite the sufficient evidence availed to court by the complainant against the store, it was not convincing enough to make the judgment in favor of the customer. This should be a good lesson to all the people who carelessly walk around town without reading sign posts, or those who read and ignore the message they are conveyed in the warning signs.

Knowledge

According to law, knowledge is distinct as an awareness of truthful information. This means that the knowledge gained was through firsthand observation or experience. For instance, knowledge is observed in the case of Ms. Janet Smith who fell in a restaurant due to wet floor. Normally, testimonials in affidavits are alleged to have been complete on knowledge, unless it looks positive, or by reasonable conclusion, that they were not meant to be, but were not informed of the knowledge.

Actual Knowledge

This is whereby one has concrete knowledge on the certain occurrence of an incidence. When one has actual knowledge, he or she is obligated to take steps and warn other people about the imminent danger. Evidence based on seeing and reporting is quite different from actual knowledge. A witness can change the occurrence of a scene unlike getting evidence from a recorded source.

Constructive Knowledge

Case Law 1:

Issue:

The injured party slept and fell on the staircases of the property she was visiting. There was an oily substance on the staircases, which made the plaintiff fall. The injured party suffered a knee injury after falling.

Brief answer:

There was an affirmative evidence to establish that there was no actual knowledge of the presence of the oily substance on the staircase. The complainant did not give enough evidence to show case of negligence by the appellees.

Facts:

The complainant slipped and fell, but he did not prove this to the court. Under Maryland law and common law standards, the injured party failed to show a case of negligence by the appellees.

Analysis:

The management company was not aware of any oily substance on the staircases. The party visiting the premises also had no knowledge of any oily substance on the stairs. The court could not make jury in favor of the complainant due to lack of sufficient evidence.

Joseph v. Bozzuto Mgmt; in this case, an injured person visiting a family member in property owned by the Commission and managed by the Management Company, slipped and fell down on the staircases. The stairs had oily substance whereby the management had the responsibility to work out normal concern for his safety in upholding the ordinary areas. The Appellees extended assenting proof to set up that they have no real information of the existence of the oily matter on the staircase. In the process of affirming the trial court’s decision, the appellate court noted that the injured person gave no proof to demonstrate that appellees had real or positive knowledge of hazardous condition.

Case Law 2:

Issue:

In this case, the complainant presses charges on the proprietor. The complainant fell down and injured her back while walking on the aisle of the store. She slipped on a string beam on the floor on one of the store’s aisle.

Brief answer:

The proprietor claims he was not been aware of the string beam on the floor. The proprietor claims that he inspected the aisles of the store every day. Just before the accident, he had inspected the aisle a few minutes before, and determined that the beam was not on the floor of the store. This shows clearly that the beam fell after the inspection of the aisles of the store.

Facts:

The Greenbelt Consumer Services store was a busy store every day as many customers streamed in to shop. The owner ensured that the aisles used by the customers were clean to ensure that all customers were comfortable when shopping. On the day of the accident, the proprietor had just inspected the aisle and ensured that it was clean with no obstacles hindering passage of clients.

Analysis:

In Maryland, summary judgment motions are administered by rule 2-501. When the complainant is moving for the summary of judgment, he clearly needs to demonstrate genuine issues of fact. The complainant is unable to give clear evidence that the proprietor had actual knowledge of the string of beam on the aisle.

Moulden v. Greenbelt: In this case, neither the injured complainant nor the owner of the store was aware of the string bean on the floor. This means that the owner had no constructive knowledge of the unsafe situation in his store. The store owner did not have actual knowledge that a string bean fell on the path used by customers, and that a customer would, at that particular time, visit the store. When the complainant filed suit against the owner of the store, the owner of the store filed a motion for a directed verdict, which the trial court granted. The complainant appealed, but the court affirmed his appeal. The court concluded that the owner of the stall was had no responsibility to carry out an uninterrupted checkup tour of the stall. In addition, there was no proof of actual or constructive take in of a hazardous condition.

Case Law 3:

Issue:

Ms. Janet Smith passes every Monday morning on her way to school to purchase breakfast. The issue in this case is that Ms. Janet Smith as she waives her friend she steps forward and falls. She falls down after stepping on something purple and sticky.

Brief answer:

The manager of the Fast & Go agrees admits that Ms. Janet that fell in the cafeteria. The customers in front of Ms. Janet had poured some sticky substance, which made Ms. Janet fall upon stepping on it.

Fact:

It is a fact that Ms. Janet Smith fell and hurt her ankle. The owner of the cafeteria was kind enough to take her to hospital. The unfortunate part was she was to wear a cast for 1one month and attend physical therapy for four months.

Analysis:

According to this fact pattern, Mr. Jones was not guilty because no customer complained of any substance poured on the floor. Ms. Janet did not give enough evidence to show there was negligence in the restaurant. The cleaner was going all round the restaurant but nobody called her to clean any mess on the floor.

Janet v. Fast & Go, Ms. Janet Smith had no actual or constructive knowledge of any sticky substance on the floor. The Fast & Go management was not also aware of the sticky substance. The management has assigned a cleaner to clean the floor and the tables after customers use. On the day of occurrence Ms. Daniels, the cleaner was walking all round and no one complained of poured food on the floor. The jury was that there was no adequate evidence provided on this case.

Case Law 3:

Issue:

Ms. Janet Smith passes every Monday morning on her way to school to purchase breakfast. The issue in this case is that when waiving her friend Ms. Janet Smith steps forward and falls. She falls down after stepping on something purple and sticky.

Brief answer:

The manager of the Fast & Go admits that Ms. Janet t fell in the cafeteria. The customers in front of Ms. Janet had poured some sticky substance, which made Ms. Janet fall upon stepping on it accidentally.

Fact:

It is a fact that Ms. Janet Smith fell and hurt her ankle. The owner of the cafeteria was kind enough to take her to hospital. The unfortunate part was that she was to wear a cast for a month and attend physical therapy for four months.

Analysis:

According to this fact pattern, Mr. Jones was not guilty because no customer complained of any substance poured on the floor. Ms. Janet did not give enough evidence to show that there was negligence in the restaurant. The cleaner was going all round the restaurant, but nobody called her to clean any mess on the floor.

In Janet v. Fast & Go, Ms. Janet Smith had no actual or constructive knowledge of any sticky substance on the floor. The Fast & Go management was also not aware of the sticky substance. The management had assigned a cleaner to clean the floor and the tables after they were used by the customers. On the day of the accident, Ms. Daniels, the cleaner was walking all-round the premise, but no one complained of poured food on the floor. The jury was determined that there was no adequate evidence provided on this case.

Burden of proof

To give enough proof and to encourage the managerial judge of the strength of the appeal, the appeal is put into use as a minor legalistic matter. However, the law has to lean on the balance of justice from different perspectives. Mostly, the fact depends on prejudiced judgments. In the cases analyzed, the judges granted the accused summary of judgment. The reason is that in all the cases, the complainants and their witnesses fail to give concrete evidence. The jury could not be in their favor making some of the complainants to appeal on their cases.

Conclusion

Summary judgment’s main purpose is to allow trial courts to understand if there are some questions of substance truth to be tried by the jury, or whether a client is at liberty to a ruling as a substance of law. Consequently, a summary judgment proposal can be a proficient medium to keep judicial possessions, costs, and legal fees. Concurrently, if employed inaccurately, this process can bring out an early analysis to an opponent’s case and approach. The employment of, and answers to, summary judgment motions should be take on with attention, concern, and an authority of the detection systems making summary judgment an indication of facts to clients.

list of References

Cecil, J S, and C R. Douglas. Summary Judgment Practice in Three District Courts. United States, 1987. Print.

Thieme, Raymond G. In the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County: Ellen R. Sauerbray, Et Al., Petitioners Vs. State Administrative Board of Election Laws, Et Al., Respondents : Case No. C-94-17721. S.l.: The Court, 1995. Print.