Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Mass. R. Civ. A moving party may satisfy his burden by demonstrating that proof of an essential element of the plaintiff's case is unlikely to be forthcoming at trial. The plaintiffs argue that they presented sufficient evidence to warrant a trial of each of their negligence claims. With respect to each such claim, the plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that the defendant committed a breach of the duty to use reasonable care, that the plaintiffs suffered actual loss, and that the defendant's negligence caused their loss.
Causation is an essential element of that proof.
The plaintiffs point to nothing of substance to suggest that the judge erred in either respect. To the contrary, the record reflects that the plaintiffs failed to proffer any evidence explaining why the scaffold collapsed and therefore cannot establish any causal link between their injuries and the defendant's breach of any duty to them as either homeowner or general contractor, or because of any failure to warn of any purported defect on his property. I thought it was either because of the wood, or it had pulled away from the house. Strong also made no determination as to what caused the scaffolding to collapse. I guessed, but I'm not sure, that maybe one of the poles, the wooden 2 x 4s maybe might have been dry. . . .