IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-30630

Summary Calendar 

SHAWN MONAGHAN, Individually and on behalf of their minor children, on

behalf of G. R., on behalf of C. R., on behalf of K. M.; MELISSA MONAGHAN,

Individually and on behalf of their minor children, on behalf of G. R., on

behalf of C. R., on behalf of K. M., 

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA), INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:09-CV-00627

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiffs appeal from a summary judgment rendered in favor of

Defendant United Rentals (North America), Inc. (“United Rentals”) dismissing

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 4, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-30630 Document: 00512101753 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2013
No. 12-30630

Plaintiffs’ suit for personal injury arising out of a fall sustained on equipment

rented from United Rentals. Finding no error, we affirm. 

Plaintiff Shawn Monaghan’s employer, Mechanical Insulation, Inc., rented

a scissor-lift from Defendant United Rentals. While using the scissor-lift to

install insulation materials, Plaintiff fell when a handrail failed, apparently

because of missing bolts. Scott Miley (“Miley”), the lead foreman and Plaintiff’s

supervisor, stated that he had inspected the lift on March 11, 2009, when it was

received from the Defendant, that it was in good condition, and that he found no

missing bolts in the handrail. Upon inspection, he signed a “Quality Condition

Report” to that effect. 

Plaintiff’s accident happened on April 6, 2009, almost a month after the

employer received the lift. Miley testified that iron workers borrowed the lift for

“practically a month” and “apparently they altered it.” 

The district court granted summary judgment for Defendant United

Rentals because no summary judgment evidence was produced indicating the lift

had defects when it left Defendant’s hands, and Defendant produced affirmative

evidence that it had no defects when delivered. As the lift was used by other

parties for nearly a month after Defendant relinquished control, no inference

arises that it was defective when delivered. 

Further, while Plaintiff contends that the district court erred in granting

summary judgment based on the testimony of Miley because Miley is not

credible, the issue presented is not one of credibility, but rather of proof. No

evidence presented by Plaintiff contradicted the sworn testimony of Miley or the

Quality Condition Report signed by Miley at the time of delivery. 

We agree with the district court that no genuine issue of material fact was

presented and summary judgment was proper. For the above reasons and the

reasons stated by the district court in its careful memorandum ruling of May 10,

2012, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 

2

 Case: 12-30630 Document: 00512101753 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/04/2013