Case Name: William THURMOND Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William WILKENLOH and Karen Wilkenloh, his wife, Individually and as Trustee of the Karen M. Wilkenloh Revocable Living Trust Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-10-05
Citations: 19 F. App'x 479
Docket Number: No. 00-3144
Parties: William THURMOND Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William WILKENLOH and Karen Wilkenloh, his wife, Individually and as Trustee of the Karen M. Wilkenloh Revocable Living Trust Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN AND MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG, Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 19
Pages: 479–480

Head Matter:
William THURMOND Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William WILKENLOH and Karen Wilkenloh, his wife, Individually and as Trustee of the Karen M. Wilkenloh Revocable Living Trust Defendants-Appellees.
No. 00-3144.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted April 11, 2001.
Filed Oct. 5, 2001.
Before WOLLMAN AND MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG, Judge.
. The Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff-appellant, William Thurmond, appeals the district court's order granting defendants-appellees' Motion for Summary-Judgment. Thurmond brought suit against the defendants-appellees claiming they were hable for the injuries he sustained during a fall from the roof of their home while performing roof work. Thurmond was employed at the time of the accident by an independent contractor hired by the defendants-appellees. Subject matter jurisdiction was established by diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(1994).
Thurmond claims that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Thurmond was injured as a result of an inherently dangerous activity. We affirm the decision of the district court.
After a careful examination of the record, this Court finds that the trial court did not commit error by granting the defendants-appellees' Motion for Summary Judgment. The trial court correctly determined, as a matter of Missouri law, that the roofing work was not inherently dangerous. See Hatch v. V.P. Fair Foundation, Inc., 990 S.W.2d 126, 136 (Mo.Ct.App.1999) ("If . the trial court concludes the activity does not involve some peculiar risk of harm, then the activity is not inherently dangerous as a matter of law."); Hofstetter v. Union Electric Co., 724 S.W.2d 527, 529-30 (Mo.Ct.App.1986). Under Eighth Circuit Rule 47B, no further commentary is warranted.
. The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.