OPPapers.com Essay Index >> Social Issues >> Memo For Motion Against Summary Judgment
We have many free term papers and essays on Memo For Motion Against Summary Judgment. We also have a wide variety of research papers and book reports available to you for free. You can browse our collection of term papers or use our search engine.
memo for motion against summary judgment. I. Introduction and Standard for
Opposition to Summary Judgment Crowell Academy, Inc. and ...
... A former employee has just filed suit against the company and one ... a three (3) to
five (5) page memo to the ... On the other hand, we can file a motion arguing that ...
... November 16, 2000, Honda produced a memo based on Dr ... of Ohio alleging that Honda
discriminated against him on ... to Honda and denied Kleiber’s motion for summary ...
... on the motion in limine and the motion to quash ... Therefore, the Code Green memo did
not change the ... the Boyd Court's broad proscription against the compulsion of ...
... relating to an individual, A Summary of NASCIO's ... year California issued a management
memo that clarifies ... efforts, they also warned against an unquestioning ...
Submitted by jdinmd on May 10, 2005
Category: Social Issues
Words: 1971 | Pages: 8
Views: 155
Popularity Rank: 77,407
Average Member Grade: N/A (Add a Comment / Grade this Paper)
I. Introduction and Standard for Opposition to Summary Judgment
Crowell Academy, Inc. and Arturo Gomez, (hereinafter, collectively "Crowell") were grossly negligent and used willful misconduct in their responsibilities involving the fencing club. The bargaining power of Crowell was so grossly unequal so as to put Lajuana Barnett at the mercy of Crowell's negligence. Lastly, the exculpatory clause contained in the release form (see release form) is void as against public policy. Consequently, under Maryland law, it is up to the trier of fact to determine if the exculpatory clause is unenforceable. As such, there is a dispute as to the genuine issue of material fact related to Crowell's Answer, Crowell can be liable to Lajauna Barnett for negligence, and Crowell is not entitled to Summary Judgment as a matter of law.
Summary Judgment should be granted only upon a showing that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Rairigh, 59 Md. App. 305, 313, cert. denied, 301 Md. 176 (1984). If there is a conflict between the inferences which may be drawn from the evidence before the court, summary judgment is not proper. Boucher v. Riner, 68 Md. App. 539, 543 (1986) (quoting Coffey v. Derby Steel Co., 291 Md. 241, 246-247 (1981)). Unless the facts are so clear as to permit a conclusion as a matter of law, it is for the trier of fact to determine whether a defendant's negligent conduct amounts to gross negligence. Jacob v. Davis, 128 Md.App. 433, 465 (1999) (quoting Artis v. Cyphers, 100 Md.App. 633, 652 (1994)). Generally, exculpatory agreements otherwise valid are not construed to cover the more extreme forms of negligence-wilful, wanton, reckless, or gross. Winterstein v. Wilcom, 16 Md.App. 130, 136 (1972).
II. Statement of Undisputed Material Facts
1. Defendant Arturo Gomez is the fencing coach at Crowell and at all times relevant to this matter acted as Crowell's servant.
2. Crowell...
You must Login to view the entire paper.
If you are not a member yet, Sign Up for free!