Nettles v. Henderson
Decision Date | 26 June 1987 |
Citation | 510 So.2d 212 |
Parties | Juan F. NETTLES v. Bryant HENDERSON. 85-673. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Marc E. Bradley of Stanard & Mills, Mobile, for appellant.
Thomas M. Galloway, Jr., of Collins, Galloway & Smith, Mobile, for appellee.
Juan Nettles appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of defendant-appellee Bryant Henderson, in a negligence case. We affirm.
On or about November 28, 1984, Nettles, Henderson and three other persons went deer hunting. They traveled in two pick-up trucks. Upon completion of the hunting trip, the party split up, with Nettles and two other persons leaving in the first pick-up truck.
After driving a short distance, Nettles and his companions realized that Henderson and his companion had not followed them out of the woods. Nettles and his companions parked their truck and began to walk back, whereupon they discovered that Henderson's pick-up truck had slid partially into a ditch. Henderson was unable to move the truck forward. Henderson remained in the truck while Nettles went to the passenger side and, along with the others, began to push and pull. Henderson was attempting to back the truck up and, at the same time, his companions were helping. Nettles's deposition testimony is that he was pushing against the front side of the truck when it began to slide forward. At this point, Nettles says, he partially lost his balance and was caused to push more strongly against the truck; he felt a cramping in his chest. Later, Nettles was taken to the hospital and diagnosed as having received a spontaneous pneumothorax. 1
Nettles contends that Henderson was negligent and that Henderson's negligence caused Nettles's injury and, therefore, that summary judgment was inappropriate.
Defendant Henderson, in support of his motion for summary judgment, submitted an affidavit, the gist of which is to establish that he was not negligent in the operation of his truck. Plaintiff Nettles offered no counter-affidavit, but had already given a deposition, which was in the record. Nettles contends that the deposition testimony is sufficient to create the "genuine issue of material fact" (Rule 56, A.R.Civ.P.) necessary to defeat the summary judgment motion. We disagree.
In Wilson v. Brown, 496 So.2d 756 (Ala.1986), this Court stated:
(Citing Harrell v. Reynolds Metals Co., 495 So.2d 1381 (Ala.1986).) See, e.g., Hale v. City of Tuscaloosa, 449 So.2d 1243 (Ala.1984); Allen v. Whitehead, 423 So.2d 835 (Ala.1982); Robertson v. City of Tuscaloosa, 413 So.2d 1064 (Ala.1982); Raley v. Royal Ins. Co., 386 So.2d 742 (Ala.1980); Rule 56(c), A.R.Civ.P.
Summary judgment for the defendant is proper if, as to some essential element of plaintiff's case, there is no evidence. In Liberty National Life Insurance Co. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hail v. Regency Terrace Owners Ass'n
...769 So.2d 903, 906 (Ala. 1999). See, also, Calvert v. Casualty Reciprocal Exch. Ins. Co., 523 So.2d 361 (Ala. 1988); Nettles v. Henderson, 510 So.2d 212 (Ala.1987); Wilson v. Brown, 496 So.2d 756 (Ala.1986). However, "[i]n reviewing the trial court's ruling on a motion for summary judgment,......
-
Berner v. Caldwell
...summary judgment is inappropriate. Calvert v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange Insurance Co., 523 So.2d 361 (Ala.1988); Nettles v. Henderson, 510 So.2d 212 (Ala.1987); Wilson v. Brown, 496 So.2d 756 I do not interpret the quote from Celotex in Lawson State as meaning that the party moving for s......
-
Ex parte General Motors Corp.
...summary judgment is inappropriate. Calvert v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange Insurance Co., 523 So.2d 361 (Ala.1988); Nettles v. Henderson, 510 So.2d 212 (Ala. 1987); Wilson v. Brown, 496 So.2d 756 "I do not interpret the quote from Celotex in Lawson State as meaning that the party moving for......
-
Gallups v. Cotter, 86-1581
...pleadings, but rather must set forth, by affidavit or otherwise, sufficient facts to show a genuine issue for trial. Nettles v. Henderson, 510 So.2d 212 (Ala.1987); Whatley v. Cardinal Pest Control, 388 So.2d 529 (Ala.1980); Johnston v. Central Bank of the South, 501 So.2d 1237 (Ala.Civ.App......