Message
×
loading..

William Thurmond v. William Wilkenloh ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                    United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 00-3144
    ___________
    William Thurmond                       *
    *
    Plaintiff-Appellant,             *
    *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                               * District Court for the
    * Eastern District of Missouri
    *
    William Wilkenloh and Karen            *
    Wilkenloh, his wife, Individually      * [UNPUBLISHED]
    and as Trustee of the Karen M.         *
    Wilkenloh Revocable Living Trust       *
    *
    Defendants-Appellees.            *
    ___________
    Submitted: April 11, 2001
    Filed: October 5, 2001
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN AND MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG,1 Judge.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    1
    The Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, Judge, United States Court of
    International Trade, sitting by designation.
    Plaintiff-appellant, William Thurmond, appeals the district court’s2 order
    granting defendants-appellees’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Thurmond brought
    suit against the defendants-appellees claiming they were liable for the injuries he
    sustained during a fall from the roof of their home while performing roof work.
    Thurmond was employed at the time of the accident by an independent contractor
    hired by the defendants-appellees. Subject matter jurisdiction was established by
    diversity of citizenship. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 1332
     (1994).
    Thurmond claims that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment
    because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Thurmond was
    injured as a result of an inherently dangerous activity. We affirm the decision of the
    district court.
    After a careful examination of the record, this Court finds that the trial court
    did not commit error by granting the defendants-appellees’ Motion for Summary
    Judgment. The trial court correctly determined, as a matter of Missouri law, that the
    roofing work was not inherently dangerous. See Hatch v. V.P. Fair Foundation, Inc.,
    
    990 S.W.2d 126
    , 136 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990) (“If . . . the trial court concludes the
    activity does not involve some peculiar risk of harm, then the activity is not
    inherently dangerous as a matter of law.”); Hofstetter v. Union Electric Co., 
    724 S.W.2d 527
    , 529-30 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986). Under Eighth Circuit Rule 47B, no further
    commentary is warranted.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    2
    The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
    the Eastern District of Missouri.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-3144

Judges: Wollman, Murphy, Goldberg

Filed Date: 10/5/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024