Opinion ID: 1199651
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: conclusion

Text: ¶ 19 Even when basic facts are undisputed, motions for summary judgment should be denied, if under the evidence, reasonable persons might reach different conclusions from the undisputed facts. Summary judgement is proper only when the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions or other evidentiary materials establish that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [10] ¶ 20 Prichard's claim against the City is not that the City caused his underlying injury as in Schmidt, but that he was deprived of necessary medical attention due to the negligence of its officer. To support an actionable claim for negligence, a plaintiff must establish the concurrent existence of: a duty on the part of the defendant to protect the plaintiff from injury; a failure of the defendant to perform that duty; and an injury to the plaintiff resulting from the failure of the defendant. [11] Although, the police officer's duty is not disputed, we express no opinion on the degree that the police officer's actions may have contributed to Prichard's injury. However, because reasonable people could differ on whether, and to what extent, the police officer's actions may have contributed to Prichard's injury, the cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OPINION VACATED; TRIAL COURT REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED. SUMMERS, C.J., LAVENDER, SIMMS, OPALA, WILSON, and WATT, J.J., concur. HARGRAVE, V.C.J., concurs in part, dissents in part. HODGES, J., not voting.