Opinion ID: 783319
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Propriety of District Court's Reliance on Assumption of Risk

Text: 42 As a threshold matter, Plaintiffs-Appellants argue that it was improper for the district court to apply the doctrine of assumption of risk to this case because that affirmative defense was not argued by the Defendant either in its written motion for summary judgment or during oral argument on the motion. We conclude, however, that the district court acted within its authority in relying upon this doctrine. A district court may properly grant summary judgment on grounds not argued in the motion by the parties. Hines v. Joy Mfg. Co., 850 F.2d 1146, 1150 (6th Cir.1988) (Where it is clear there is no genuine issue of material fact, a court may properly grant summary judgment on a ground other than that assigned in the motion.). Therefore, we proceed to consider the merits of the defense under these circumstances.