Court Opinion

ID: 9791204
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:07:31.85551+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:34.808237
License: Public Domain

ANDREWS, Judge (specially concurring). I concur in the result, but disagree with the thrust of the discussion. Appellant raises the existence of genuine issues of material fact — this is the dispositive contention. For the trial court to have found for the defendants in this action, it would have had to find that there was no issue of fact as to whether the reason the guardrail was not constructed was because of “design” or “maintenance.” If the guardrail was the subject of agreements, and if it, therefore, was anticipated in the design, a failure to install after an extended period would most probably be a maintenance issue. However, we need not reach that point, for there is conflicting evidence as to why the guardrail was not installed, and this fact must be established prior to a determination as to what the effect of that reason would be. In my opinion, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to why the guardrail was not constructed. The trial court should determine whether the reason the guardrail was not constructed is a “design” or “maintenance” defect.