The trial court did not address the public-policy argument. Rather, the Fritzes argue that Wilde had a duty to use ordinary care in the repairs and inspections it made in order to avoid causing injury to others. They argue that Wilde's summary judgment materials did not counter the amended complaint's allegation of negligent performance of repairs and inspections. Further, they contend that the trial court's ruling improperly placed the burden for a summary judgment motion on them and that it decided questions of fact. Similarly, Mid-States argues that the pleadings show a dispute concerning whether the door was negligently repaired and that Wilde did not meet its burden to establish the absence of a factual dispute.
Summary judgment is used to determine whether there are any disputed issues for trial.
U.S. Oil Co. v. Midwest Auto Care Servs. Appellate and trial courts follow the same methodology. First, the pleadings are examined to determine whether the complaint states a claim for relief. If the complaint states a claim and the answer joins the issue, the court examines the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, and affidavits, if any.