Court Opinion

ID: 9527600
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:31:46.760821+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:56.200266
License: Public Domain

ROBERTSON, Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur with the majority opinion as it relates to the city of Indianapolis.
I respectfully dissent to the granting of summary judgment as it applies to Brothers and Kentucky. The majority opinion is based upon Tucher's failure to come forward with evidence about the source of gravel on the street.
Summary judgment is ordinarily not the appropriate vehicle to determine a negligence case. Rediechs Exp., Inc. v. Maple (1986), Ind.App., 491 N.E.2d 1006. Moreover, it has been held, in Newhouse v. Farmers National Bank of Shelbyville (1989), Ind.App., 532 N.E.2d 26, 28:
On Appeal from the grant or denial of summary judgment we use the same standard in ascertaining the propriety of summary judgment as did the trial court. Summary judgment is appropriate only when the record establishes that no genuine issue of material fact exists and the proponent is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. The movant bears the burden of establishing the propriety of summary judgment, and all facts and inferences to be drawn therefrom are viewed in a light most favorable to the non-movant. Summary judgment should be granted guardedly and should not be used as an abreviated trial. Thus, even when the facts are not in dispute, if conflicting inferences could be drawn from those facts, summary judgment is inappropriate. The trial court's belief as to whether the non-movant will be sue-cessful at trial is not a ground for granting summary judgment. Also, even when the facts and inferences are not in issue, if those facts do not mandate a judgment in favor of the movant but only permit such a result, then summary judgment is inappropriate. (Citations omitted.)
It is my opinion that the facts upon which summary judgment is based in this case present conflicting inferences or, in the alternative, only permit the granting of summary judgment but do not mandate it. Summary judgment, in my opinion, is not appropriate to this case.