Case ID: f-appx_22/html/0651-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edward G. SANDERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G & W ELECTRIC COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 00-3914.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 20, 2001.
    Filed Oct. 26, 2001.
    
      Before BYE, LAY, and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, G & W Electric Company (G & W), an Illinois corporation. Edward G. Sanders, a University of Minnesota employee and journeyman electrician for twenty-three years, brought this suit for damages for electrocution while installing a fuse into an industrial switch manufactured by G & W. Sanders claimed that G & W negligently failed to provide adequate and accurate installation materials for the switch.

The district court found there was no genuine dispute of material fact as to breach of any duty. The district court observed:

Mr. Sanders is a trained and experienced electrician who, by his own admission, is aware of the electrical safety principle that one should assume that an element is energized until it has been tested and proven otherwise. Moreover; Mr. Sanders has admitted that had he looked more carefully at the switch, he would have known that the switch was wired in reverse and, therefore, realized that the electrical current was in fact running through the switch. Thus, the Defendant concludes, and the court agrees, that the Defendant did not owe to Mr. Sanders a duty to warn him of the potential that the canisters were energized. Consequently, the court need not even reach the issues of breach and causation.

Dist. Ct. Opn. at 7.

The court further found there was no genuine dispute of material fact as to causation. The plaintiff admitted he did not read the warnings provided. He also admitted that he failed to wear insulated safety gloves or utilize an available current detection device in violation of University and OSHA policies. The court found under the circumstances that any alleged inadequacies could not be the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.

We find the district court has thoroughly addressed the claims plaintiff has raised; our review of the appeal record clearly sustains the view of the district court. The case has little precedential value, and we therefore summarily affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Judgment AFFIRMED.