Summary
This federal district court order grants in part and denies in part the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment in a motor vehicle negligence action. While the court grants summary judgment on the defendant driver's negligence as unopposed, it denies the motion regarding the plaintiff's alleged contributory negligence. The denial is based on the plaintiffs' failure to comply with local rules requiring a statement of material facts, as well as the general principle that contributory negligence questions are typically reserved for a jury.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether summary judgment should be granted on Astrel's negligence claim
- Whether summary judgment should be granted on Nies's negligence (contributory negligence) claim
Holdings
- Summary judgment was granted because the defendants did not oppose the claim and there was no genuine dispute that Astrel was negligent.
- Summary judgment was denied because the plaintiffs failed to submit the required statement of material facts and genuine issues of fact remain regarding contributory negligence.
Key quotations
“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a))
Factual background
On Jan. 4, 2021, Esther Nies was driving her minivan on Dickinson Road in Glenmore, Wisconsin, when a semitruck driven by Daniel Astrel failed to stop at a stop sign and struck the van, injuring Nies and three children. The plaintiffs sued Astrel and his employer; the action was removed to federal court.
Procedural history
The case was removed from Brown County Circuit Court to this court under diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on negligence claims; defendants did not oppose the portion concerning Astrel's negligence but the plaintiffs failed to submit a required statement of material facts.