Harrison v. Falcon Products, Inc.
| Decision Date | 10 December 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 17856,17856 |
| Citation | 103 Nev. 558,746 P.2d 642 |
| Parties | Laurie HARRISON, Appellant, v. FALCON PRODUCTS, INC., a foreign corporation, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
This is an appeal from an order granting respondent's motion for summary judgment in a products liability action. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse.
Taken in the light most favorable to appellant, the record indicates the following facts. On January 9, 1983, Laurie Harrison ("Harrison") entered Chuck E. Cheese's Pizza Time Theatre with her husband, her baby, and her mother-in-law. Harrison, seeing what she perceived to be a booth, went over to claim the seat. Actually, the seating arrangement consisted of an unattached bench and a backrest. Harrison kneeled against the bench, and her knee wedged in between the bench and the backrest. The bench slid, and Harrison fell, sustaining injuries.
Harrison filed suit against the manufacturer of the bench, Falcon Products, Inc. ("Falcon"), on January 8, 1985, alleging negligence, breach of warranties, and strict liability. In its answer, Falcon denied liability. On October 24, 1986, Falcon moved for summary judgment contending that it did not know the intended use of its bench nor did it have any responsibility for the placement of the bench. In her opposition, Harrison sought additional time to conduct discovery pursuant to NRCP 56(f). The district court refused to allow a continuance and granted summary judgment on November 26, 1986. Harrison appeals the court's decision.
Preliminarily, we note that not even two years had passed since the filing of the complaint until the time summary judgment was granted. The harsh result of granting summary judgment is obvious when had a motion to dismiss been before the district court, the court would not have had the power to dismiss the action. See NRCP 41(e).
Moreover, appellant's diligence in pursuing this action is reflected by her request for additional time to take depositions and to seek admissions. A party is allowed to discover any information that is "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." See NRCP 26(b)(1). Therefore, Harrison was entitled to conduct such discovery. Further, Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) 1 provides that when the party opposing summary judgment lacks supporting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baughman v. American Tel. and Tel. Co.
...have been reasonably diligent in pursuit of a qualified expert to substantiate their claims. Bixler, supra; Harrison v. Falcon Products, Inc., 103 Nev. 558, 746 P.2d 642 (1987); cf. Sitts v. United States, 811 F.2d 736 (2d Cir.1987); Paul Kadair, Inc. v. Sony Corp. of America, 694 F.2d 1017......
-
Anderson v. Wells Cargo, Inc.
...700, 782 P.2d 1318, 1320 (1989) ; Halimi v. Blacketor, 105 Nev. 105, 106, 770 P.2d 531, 531–32 (1989) ; Harrison v. Falcon Products, 103 Nev. 558, 560, 746 P.2d 642, 042–43 (1987). However, Anderson's argument that the district court abused its discretion in denying his request because he w......
-
Wiltsie v. Baby Grand Corp.
...for discovery is made early in the proceedings. See Halimi v. Blacketor, 105 Nev. ----, 770 P.2d 531 (1989); Harrison v. Falcon Products, 103 Nev. 558, 746 P.2d 642 (1987). However, because appellant has no cause of action in this case, additional discovery would be of no use. Therefore, th......
-
Aviation Ventures v. Joan Morris, Inc.
... ... 3. Harrison v. Falcon Products, 103 Nev. 558, 560, 746 P.2d 642, 643 (1987) ... 4. Bakerink ... ...