AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Plaintiff appealed from a district court order that granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant. The case involved an incident where the Plaintiff argued that the Defendant's doors had been in operation for a significant length of time without any reported injuries, suggesting a potential dangerous condition that the Defendant had a duty to warn about. The Plaintiff's forgetfulness regarding the operation of the doors was also mentioned as a point of contention.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that genuine issues of material fact exist, based on the undisputed facts regarding the length of time the Defendant’s doors had been in operation without any reported injuries. Asserted that conflicting inferences could be drawn from these facts, indicating a dangerous condition that the Defendant had a duty to warn about. Also contended that the Plaintiff's forgetfulness regarding the operation of the doors was a question of fact for the jury (paras 2, 4).
• Defendant: Successfully argued for summary judgment at the district court level, a decision which the Plaintiff appealed. The specific arguments made by the Defendant are not detailed in the provided text.

Legal Issues

• Whether the undisputed facts regarding the length of time the Defendant’s doors had been in operation without any reported injuries create a genuine issue of material fact.
• Whether the existence of conflicting inferences from the same basic facts constitutes evidence of a genuine issue of material fact.
• Whether the Plaintiff's forgetfulness regarding the operation of the doors was a question of fact for the jury.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant.

Reasons

• JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge (JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Chief Judge, and SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge, concurring):
  The Court found the Plaintiff's arguments unpersuasive, noting that the Plaintiff failed to place any material facts in dispute and did not provide any citations to authority to support the assertion that the Defendant had a duty to warn under the circumstances described. It was determined that whether a party owes a duty to another is generally a question of law for the courts to decide. The Court also noted that the Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s proposed conclusion that the Defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which led to the issue being deemed abandoned. The Plaintiff's reliance on a previous case (Greiser v. Brown) to support the argument that her forgetfulness regarding the operation of the doors was a question of fact for the jury was rejected. The Court adhered to its initial assessment and affirmed the district court's decision, emphasizing the burden on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law (paras 1-5).