X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Jack Pierce sued John T. (Jake) Holiday for injuries Pierce allegedly sustained while cutting hay on Holiday’s farm. The trial court granted Holiday’s motion for partial summary judgment and later granted Holiday’s full summary judgment motion. Pierce appeals the trial court’s granting of summary judgment. HOLDING:Affirmed. Holiday’s motion for traditional summary judgment contended the evidence conclusively disproved an element of Pierce’s premises liability claims. The motion did not, however, attack Pierce’s claim for receiving inadequate training or his claim that he was provided inadequate equipment. Thus, to the extent Holiday did not attack all of Pierce’s causes of action, the trial court should not have granted summary judgment as to all of Pierce’s claims. Darwin Gunby testified he could not remember whether he had bailed any hay during the season when Pierce was allegedly injured. Nor did he specifically testify � and his testimony does not otherwise suggest � he had specific knowledge that no holes or washouts existed in the field on the date of Pierce’s alleged injury. Instead, Gunby testified he did not remember coming across any large hole on Holiday’s property, but no time frame was attached to this claim. And Gunby conceded that Holiday owned equipment which he could have used to fill in any hole that might have existed. Further, Gunby’s testimony reflects only his personal knowledge; his testimony says nothing of what Holiday did or did not know regarding the field’s condition before Pierce’s alleged injury. Dwayne Brown also testified he had not ever had any problems with washouts in the field and had never noticed any holes in the field. But he acknowledged that if there had been a big hole on the property somewhere, Holiday had the capability of filling in the hole. Brown did not specifically state whether Holiday had actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition in the field on the date of Pierce’s alleged injury. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Pierce, the court cannot say the evidence before the trial court conclusively disproved the foreknowledge element of Pierce’s premises liability claims. Further, Holiday’s motion for traditional summary judgment did not address Pierce’s other causes of action regarding inadequate training and equipment. Accordingly, the trial court should not have granted a full and final summary judgment in Holiday’s favor based on his motion for traditional summary judgment. Holiday’s motion for no-evidence summary judgment contended only that there was no evidence about the element of Holiday’s foreknowledge of the alleged dangerous condition that caused Pierce’s injury. Pierce’s no-evidence motion for summary judgment did not attack Pierce’s causes of action regarding inadequate training and equipment. The trial court should not have granted a no-evidence summary judgment in favor of Holiday on all of Pierce’s claims when Holiday’s no-evidence motion for summary judgment did not attack all of Pierce’s causes of action. OPINION:Grant, J.; Ross, Carter and Grant, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.