Court Opinion

ID: 9712216
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:49:23.837747+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:11.005779
License: Public Domain

FRIEDLANDER, Judge,
dissenting.
The majority concludes that, of the several arguments made by Zubrenic in assailing the grant of summary judgment, only one has merit. As to that argument, the majority concludes that summary judgment was erroneous because "Dunes Valley has not carried its burden in demonstrating that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the stairway was provided for its business purposel[.]" Slip op. at 809. I reject that argument, along with the others advanced by Zubrenic, and therefore respectfully dissent.
Restatement § 392 applies in situations where a party supplies a chattel to be used for the supplier's business purposes. Assuming the portable staircase constituted a chattel in this context, I cannot agree that it was to be used for Dune Valley's business purposes. I suppose there may be an oblique, theoretical connection between the stairease's use and Dunes Valley's business purposes. I believe, however, that a direct nexus is required before § 392 applies. A casual observer would undoubtedly describe the stairway's use as personal in that it was the primary means of ingress and egress for the mobile home's residents. The fact that we consider this matter in the context of a summary judgment proceeding in a personal injury lawsuit does not require that we suspend the ordinary understanding of the stairway's use and apply what I consider to be a strained analysis that flies in the face of common understanding. We should employ a straightforward inquiry into the stairease's use. In my view, such leads inescapably to the conclusion that the stairway was not used for Dunes Valley's business purposes. I would affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of Dunes Valley.