Court Opinion

ID: 9884033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:32:16.451967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:34.540527
License: Public Domain

NIERENGARTEN, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, as we must in reviewing a summary judgment, I believe the evidence is sufficient to preclude summary judgment on the appellant’s section 1983 claim.
Although the evidence largely is circumstantial, I believe there is sufficient evidence from which a jury reasonably could conclude the fatal shotgun blast was caused by something other than mere negligence. The officers’ statements about the circumstances surrounding the shooting are inconsistent and contradictory in some material respects. In addition, the location and nature of Scott’s wounds, the physical evidence at the scene of the shooting, and the forensic evidence from the autopsy raise fact issues with respect to the circumstances under which the shotgun was discharged.
[I]f any doubt exists as to the existence of a genuine issue as to a material fact, the doubt must be resolved in favor of finding that the fact issue exists. Facts, inferences, or conclusions that may be drawn by a jury are fact issues.
Rathbun v. W.T. Grant Co., 300 Minn. 223, 230, 219 N.W.2d 641, 646 (1974).
The evidence in the record shows there are genuine issues of material fact which must be resolved by a jury. Accordingly, I would reverse.