Court Opinion

ID: 9541027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:21:53.093965+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:20.230442
License: Public Domain

GARRARD, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority. Although the trial judge no doubt believed the plaintiff would be unable to recover, the grants of summary judgment were, at least, premature.
Regarding the city, and in addition to the credibility issue focused on by the majority, it should be noted that the complaint alleged the city street was negligently designed, constructed and maintained. There had been no narrowing of the issues thereby raised, and the materials before the court when summary judgment was granted did not conclusively establish the non-existence of all these allegations. Neither can we say at this juncture that however negligent the city may have been there could be no causation as a matter of law.
*232The problem with the claim against the church is similar. There were not sufficient facts before the court to determine whether or not the cable could or might have constituted a trap. In fact, although a photograph showing the cable was apparently displayed to Gaboury during his deposition, it is not included in the deposition or any of the other materials before the court when it granted the judgment, nor is the cable otherwise described.
When the facts are developed it may well be that Gaboury will be precluded as a matter of law or a matter of fact from recovery. The significance of our decision today is merely to reinforce the conclusion that summary judgment is an ill-suited device for resolving the merits of tort claims sounding in negligence.