Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lamb v. Mid Indiana Service Co., Inc.

Court of Appeals of Indiana

October 29, 2014

GARY LAMB, Appellant-Plaintiff,
v.
MID INDIANA SERVICE COMPANY, INC., B2 CONTRACTORS, LLC, C & M WRECKING INC., and C & M TRUCKING & EXCAVATING INC., Appellees-Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT. The Honorable David A. Shaheed, Judge. Cause No. 49D01-1204-CT-15287.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: DAVID W. CRAIG, SCOTT A. FAULTLESS, Craig Kelley & Faultless, LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE MID INDIANA SERVICE CO., INC.: MARK D. GERTH, RICHARD A. YOUNG, Kightlinger & Gray, LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana.

SHARPNACK, Senior Judge. FRIEDLANDER, J., and MAY, J., concur.

OPINION

Page 793

SHARPNACK, Senior Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Gary Lamb, while working for Kingdom Electric, a subcontractor together with others of Mid Indiana Service Company, Inc., the general contractor for a construction project, sustained injuries when a trench partially collapsed. Lamb sued Mid Indiana and others to recover damages for his injuries. Mid Indiana moved for summary judgment and Lamb responded. Both parties designated evidence. The trial court granted summary judgment and entered final judgment for Mid Indiana. Lamb appeals. We reverse and remand.

ISSUE

The issue presented is whether there are any genuine issues of material fact shown in the designated evidence which preclude summary judgment for Mid Indiana.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

Lamb contends the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Mid Indiana. The purpose of summary judgment is to terminate litigation about which there can be no factual dispute and which can be determined as a matter of law. Sheehan Constr. Co., Inc. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 938 N.E.2d 685, 689 (Ind. 2010). Our standard of review is identical to that of the trial court: whether there exists a genuine issue of material fact and whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Kroger Co. v. Plonski, 930 N.E.2d 1, 4-5 (Ind. 2010); see also Ind. Trial Rule 56(C). Appellate review of a summary judgment motion is limited to

Page 794

those materials designated to the trial court. Sheehan Constr. Co., Inc., 938 N.E.2d at 688. In addition, all facts and reasonable inferences drawn from those facts are ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.