Court Opinion

ID: 9616542
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:47:38.89903+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:53:12.112444
License: Public Domain

Chief Judge Brock
dissenting.
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is based in part upon his earlier Rule 12(b) (6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The trial judge ruled upon the motion to dismiss and treated it as a motion for summary judgment, as is permitted under Rule 12 (b). Upon this view of the trial court’s ruling, I would affirm in part and reverse in part.
In my opinion the factual allegations by the plaintiff and her testimony by deposition disclose, as a matter of law, that the negligence of defendant, if any, was not a proximate cause of the injury to plaintiff’s hand. Therefore, there is an absence of law to support her claim for damages to her hand. To this extent, I vote to affirm the dismissal of her action.
I vote to reverse the dismissal of plaintiff’s action insofar as it relates to her claim for damages to her property (her dog).