Summary 2009 WY 135

Summary of Decision issued November 6, 2009

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

Case Name: Collings v. Lord

Citation: 2009 WY 135

Docket Number: S-08-0225

Appeal from the District Court of Uinta County, Honorable Dennis L. Sanderson, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff): Mark W. Harris of Harris Law Firm, Evanston, Wyoming

Representing Appellee (Defendant): Raymond W. Martin of Sundahl, Powers, Kapp & Martin, Cheyenne, Wyoming

Issues: Whether the District Court erred in granting summary judgment and concluding that no genuine issue of material fact existed that Appellee’s negligence was not a cause of Appellant’s injuries.

Facts: Appellant seeks recovery for injuries sustained while using Appellee’s table saw during restoration of a home owned by Appellee.

Holdings: In order to maintain a claim of negligence, a plaintiff must prove: 1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of reasonable care; 2) the defendant breached the duty; and 3) the defendant’s breach was the proximate cause of injury or loss to the plaintiff. In order for proximate cause to exist, “the accident or injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the act of negligence. In fact, the ultimate test of proximate cause is foreseeability of injury. In order to qualify as a legal cause, the conduct must be a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff’s injuries. Proximate cause is a question of fact in the usual case, reserved for the determination by the trier of fact, unless the evidence is such that reasonable minds could not disagree.

In the present case, the Appellant made no showing of neglect or failure to perform a duty by the Appellee. There is no substantial evidence in the record that shows that the accident was a foreseeable consequence of Appellee’s conduct. Rather, the evidence presented to the district court shows that neither party knows exactly what caused the saw blade to bind. Specifically, Appellant could not identify what Appellee did, if anything, to cause the kickback and resultant injury to Appellant. Appellee knew of Appellant’s prior experience with both table saws and dado blades. As to the particular task at hand, Appellant assured Appellee he understood what needed to be done. In fact, there is evidence on the record as to Appellant’s experience as a cabinet maker and carpenter – in the past, Appellant had actually taken precautions to eliminate and/or reduce the risk of the potential and obvious danger of using dado blades. He was familiar with and in the past had made and used “push sticks” when using dado blades. The purpose of a “push stick,” according to Appellant, is to prevent the operator’s hands from coming into contact with the dado blades – the exact scenario in the instant case. By Appellant’s own account, not keeping wood straight in alignment with the fence and blade on the table saw can cause a bind – the only “input” into keeping a piece of wood in alignment is the operator, who manually pushes the wood across the saw. Appellee was not pushing the wood with Appellant, and, accordingly, did not proximately cause his injuries.

Appellant fails on appeal to show any genuine issue of material fact on the element of causation, and, as such, Appellee is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the opinion for the court.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/yflgjxc

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]