Court Opinion

ID: 9675719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:03:43.141062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:37.922999
License: Public Domain

MADDOX, Justice
(concurring specially)-
I concur that the court should not have granted the motion for summary judgment based upon the record in this case. This is a negligence action and as this court pointed out in Folmar v. Montgomery Fair, (1975), 293 Ala. 686, 309 So.2d 818, a summary judgment in a negligence action is rarely appropriate.
The burden is on the movant to establish that there is no genuine issue of a material fact left in the case. I believe the movant failed to meet that burden here.
The mere allegation in plaintiff’s pleading that the defendant was negligent will ' not be enough to create a genuine issue of fact if the defendant can show, by competent evidence, that there is a not a scintilla of evidence upon which a jury could find the defendant guilty of negligence.
The party moving for summary judgment has the burden to show that he is en*582titled to judgment under established principles; and if he does not discharge that burden, then he is not entitled to judgment. No defense to an insufficient showing is required. See Moore’s Federal Practice, Vol. 6, p. 2825.
The Committee Comments to Rule 56 provides a procedure which may or may not be appropriate in this case. The comments are:
“Where a party cannot present facts sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment, but there is a good reason to believe he may have such evidence by the trial, the court has ample discretion either to deny the motion or to order a continuance. Rule 56(f); Mason v. New York Cent. R. R., 8 F.R.D. 637 (W.D.N.Y.1949); United States v. Newbury Mfg. Co., 1 F.R.D. 718 (D.Mass. 1941).”
HEFLIN, C. J., and JONES, J., concur.