![eirmc er facebook eirmc er facebook](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/X3JFIz8HvTA/mqdefault.jpg)
Whether a duty was owed is a legal question over which this Court exercises free review. “No liability exists under the law of torts unless the person from whom relief is sought owed a duty to the allegedly injured party.” Vickers v. “The burden of proving the absence of material facts is upon the moving party.” Lane Ranch Partnership v. 56(c) is inappropriate if any genuine issue of material fact remains unresolved.
#EIRMC ER FACEBOOK TRIAL#
When a trial judge passes upon a motion for summary judgment and when this Court reviews the grant of a motion for summary judgment, the standard is the same-all facts and inferences are to be construed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party and summary judgment under I.R.C.P. Meridian Athletic Association, Inc., 105 Idaho 509, 670 P.2d 1294 (1983), this Court stated the applicable standard of review when reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion for summary judgment: In the same report, the “critique leader” Eric Kuns concluded that the ice melt appeared to create slick surfaces that the floor was noticeably slick and that personnel previously noticed the slick surface but did not report it. Subsequent investigation by Environmental, Safety and Health Engineers found two parallel skid marks on the rubber floor material. The ER Doctor suggested that the employee contact his Orthopedic Surgeon if the problem persisted. The employee had complaints about a previously injured shoulder. The ER Doctor stated there should not be a problem. An NRF Manager inquired about drug interactions with the employee's current medications. The Doctor told him this should clear in 24 hours. The employee was still complaining about seeing spots when he left the ER. The employee was discharged at 2000 with prescriptions for pain and inflammation. A CAT SCAN was taken of his head and X-rays were taken of his back. The employee was examined by the EIRMC Emergency Room (ER) Doctor. The employee was transported at 1430 to EIRMC. The INEEL Fire Department responded at 1414 with an ambulance. NRF Security and Medical were notified at 1406 and responded. The employee remembers crawling back through the inner doors where he waited for help to arrive. The employee was looking ahead to see if someone was entering the vestibule from the outside and did not notice that the hard rubber floor was covered with a film of liquid. When he stepped into the vestibule he slipped on the rubber floor and fell backwards striking his left wrist, elbow, shoulder, head and back. The employee opened the inside left door of the double door with his left hand. The technician was carrying a tool bag over his right shoulder, a hydraulic bolt cutter in his right hand and a small bag of cookies in his left hand. AmeriPride concedes that Morrison had no recollection of that delivery, and that no mat was on the floor of the southern entry at the Naval Reactor Facility on December 22, 2003.īechtel investigated the accident and described the incident as follows:Ī computer network technician was assigned to repair a computer in the Central Training Building. Darwin Morrison was responsible for placing the mats at Bechtel on December 17, 2003.
![eirmc er facebook eirmc er facebook](https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/idahopress.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/0/73/07306215-2023-5c31-88da-36ef162843cb/5f1b6a0f499cb.image.jpg)
AmeriPride had contracted with Bechtel to, among other things, place mats at locations designated by Bechtel, including the location where plaintiff allegedly fell. However, the ice melt may have made the surface slicker. The floor was not carpeted, but ice melt was placed on it. On December 22, 2003, he allegedly slipped and fell in the southern entry of the premises of the Naval Reactor Facility where he worked for Bechtel. Plaintiff was a computer network technician for Bechtel. From this order, Baccus appeals to this Court. Sticklen filed her Order Granting Summary Judgment on August 25, 2006. On August 8, 2006, Plaintiff submitted his Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
![eirmc er facebook eirmc er facebook](https://localnews8.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/EIRMC-fire-photos1_1571165906000.JPG_39515697_ver1.0_1280_720-860x484.jpg)
AmeriPride answered on July 28, 2005, and then moved for summary judgment on July 25, 2006. Plaintiff filed a Complaint and Jury Demand on June 8, 2005, seeking damages from AmeriPride.
![eirmc er facebook eirmc er facebook](https://localnews8.b-cdn.net/2020/07/EIRM-SIGN-860x645.jpg)
Simpson & Gauchay, Idaho Falls and Meyer and Williams, P.C., Jackson, WY, for appellant. AMERIPRIDE SERVICES, INC., John Does I-V, Doe Corporations I-V, Defendants-Respondents.