Case Name: Mark E. LYNCH and wife, Cynthia J. Lynch, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-18
Citations: 226 F. App'x 586
Docket Number: No. 05-6687
Parties: Mark E. LYNCH and wife, Cynthia J. Lynch, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 226
Pages: 586–586

Head Matter:
Mark E. LYNCH and wife, Cynthia J. Lynch, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 05-6687.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
June 18, 2007.
Before: GILMAN, GIBBONS, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge.
Mark E. Lynch and his wife sued Nissan North America, Inc., alleging that Nissan had been negligent both in failing to properly maintain a catwalk involved in Lynch's 2003 fall at Nissan's manufacturing facility and in delaying the treatment that he received following the accident. Nissan moved for summary judgment on the ground that, as the principal contractor for the conveyor-construction project that Lynch was working on, it was immune from tort liability under the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act. The district court granted Nissan's motion, dismissing the Lynches' suit in its entirety. This timely appeal followed.
After carefully considering the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, and having had the benefit of oral argument, we agree with the district court's grant of summary judgment to Nissan. Because the reasoning that supports the judgment for Nissan has been clearly articulated by the district court in a thorough and comprehensive opinion, the issuance of a detailed written opinion by us would be unduly duplicative. The judgment rendered by the Honorable Aleta A. Trauger, District Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, is accordingly affirmed on the basis of the reasoning set forth in her Opinion dated September 30, 2005.