Opinion ID: 1176491
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: disputed issues of fact make an award of summary judgment inappropriate.

Text: Contradictory facts were in evidence both on the issue of the primary negligence of Northwestern and McGraw-Edison and on the issue of assumption of the risk. Summary judgments are not favored in the law [11] and are appropriate only where no question of material fact remains to be resolved. [12] Even when the basic facts are undisputed, motions for summary judgment should be denied, if under the evidence, reasonable persons might reach different inferences or conclusions from the undisputed facts. [13] The existence of disputed facts concerning negligence of the appellees and assumption of the risk made the award of summary judgment inappropriate. CERTIORARI GRANTED; OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; TRIAL COURT REVERSED; CAUSE REMANDED. DOOLIN, C.J., and HODGES, OPALA, ALMA WILSON and KAUGER, JJ., concur. SIMMS, J., concurs in result. HARGRAVE, V.C.J., and LAVENDER, J., dissent.