### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

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 U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Janu ary4, 201 3 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Pursua nt to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion s houldnot * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-30630 Document: 00512101753 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2013No. 12-30630

Plaintiffs’ suit for personal i nj ury arising out of a fall sustained on equipment rented from United Rentals. Finding no error, we affirm. Pl aintif f S h awn M o n a gh an’ s e m p loyer, Mechanical Insulatio n , I nc . , r e nt e d

a scissor-lift from Defendant United Rentals. While using t h e 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 h a p pened 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.” T h e district court granted summary judgment for Defendant United Rentals because no summary judgm e nt evi de nc e w a s p roduced indicating the lift had defects when it left Defendant’s hands, and Defendant produced affirmative evidence that it had no defects wh e n d e l ivered. 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 i s n o t o n e 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