PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AGAINST DANIELS
Roosevelt Cannady alleges that on or about April 2, 2015, he was struck by construction scaffolding as he entered a store owned by Saving Incorporated d/b/a Dodge’s Store (Dodge’s Store) and/or Savings Oil Company. He claims that Defendant James Daniels d/b/a ABC Contracting Services (Daniels) was performing construction on the store’s roof at the time, and Daniels’s negligence during construction was the direct and proximate cause of his injuries.
On February 26, 2016, Cannady filed a lawsuit against Dodge’s Store, Savings Oil Company, and Daniels. Cannady alleges that Daniels was negligent because he allowed an unsafe condition to exist at the store, knew or should have known of the unsafe condition, and he did not remedy the unsafe condition. And, Cannady’s injuries were the direct and proximate cause of Daniels’s negligence.
DANIELS’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT On October 18, 2016, Daniels filed a Motion for …show more content…
In Daniels’s memorandum, he argues that a trial court granted a general contractor’s motion for summary judgment because a general contractor has no duty of care to the injured party. Williams v. Nucor-Yamato Steel Col., 886 S.W.2d 587, 587 (Ark. 1994). This argument would be compelling but for a lack of evidence in the record reflecting Bolanos’s status as an independent contractor. In fact, the only evidence that supports Daniels’s assertion is his own affidavit. Deferring consideration of Daniels’s motion until after Bolanos and Daniels are deposed will “provide an additional safeguard against an improvident or premature grant of summary judgment.” United States ex rel Barnard v. Casino Magic Corp., 293 F.3d 419, 426 (8th Cir. 2002). Therefore, the Court should, in the alternative to denying Daniels’s motion, postpone ruling on his motion until after Daniels and Bolanos are deposed next
Roosevelt Cannady alleges that on or about April 2, 2015, he was struck by construction scaffolding as he entered a store owned by Saving Incorporated d/b/a Dodge’s Store (Dodge’s Store) and/or Savings Oil Company. He claims that Defendant James Daniels d/b/a ABC Contracting Services (Daniels) was performing construction on the store’s roof at the time, and Daniels’s negligence during construction was the direct and proximate cause of his injuries.
On February 26, 2016, Cannady filed a lawsuit against Dodge’s Store, Savings Oil Company, and Daniels. Cannady alleges that Daniels was negligent because he allowed an unsafe condition to exist at the store, knew or should have known of the unsafe condition, and he did not remedy the unsafe condition. And, Cannady’s injuries were the direct and proximate cause of Daniels’s negligence.
DANIELS’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT On October 18, 2016, Daniels filed a Motion for …show more content…
In Daniels’s memorandum, he argues that a trial court granted a general contractor’s motion for summary judgment because a general contractor has no duty of care to the injured party. Williams v. Nucor-Yamato Steel Col., 886 S.W.2d 587, 587 (Ark. 1994). This argument would be compelling but for a lack of evidence in the record reflecting Bolanos’s status as an independent contractor. In fact, the only evidence that supports Daniels’s assertion is his own affidavit. Deferring consideration of Daniels’s motion until after Bolanos and Daniels are deposed will “provide an additional safeguard against an improvident or premature grant of summary judgment.” United States ex rel Barnard v. Casino Magic Corp., 293 F.3d 419, 426 (8th Cir. 2002). Therefore, the Court should, in the alternative to denying Daniels’s motion, postpone ruling on his motion until after Daniels and Bolanos are deposed next