Opinion ID: 218972
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Relevance of Warnings and Instructions

Text: The district court erred in concluding that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Albrecht attended a Webasto training before the fire. In his declaration, Albrecht insisted that he was certain he attended a class training him on the Webasto heater system prior to the fire aboard the CHUG[] in October 2006. In support, Resolute submitted illegible timesheets purporting to demonstrate Albrecht attended a training session on September 26, 2006, six days before the fire on October 2. Webasto countered with a declaration from the president of Sure Marine, stating that Sure Marine's only 2006 Webasto training took place on October 18, 2006, well after the fire. The Sure Marine declaration was accompanied by a class roster showing that Albrecht was at an October 18 training class, although it did not prove that no additional classes were held earlier in the year. Neither party's evidence established beyond the declarants' conflicting assertions whether Albrecht attended a training before the fire. The district court chose to credit the Sure Marine declaration, however, dismissing Albrecht's contrary declaration as unsubstantiated. In accepting one account over the other, the court improperly resolved an evidentiary conflict at the summary judgment stage. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (explaining that [c]redibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are inappropriate at the summary judgment stage).