 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Lorkovic6/1/1994
e law, we are instructed to "look first and always to the employment relationship itself. What was the contract between the parties?" Id. at 329. In addition, we proceed mindful that in this context the Court of Appeals has stated that an agreement to provide, or to continue to provide, transportation "need not be express but may be implied from the nature, conditions and circumstances of the employment and the custom of the employer to provide transportation." Watson, 200 Md. at 470, quoted in Ryan, 38 Md. App. at 332.
Before we can address the issue of whether the free transportation exception is applicable, we must address two critical questions ignored by the parties: (1) was summary judgment appropriate on the issue of whether Lorkovic's injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment, and (2) can we affirm summary judgment on an exception not relied on by the trial judge when he granted summary judgment?
B
The appellate courts of this state have often and recently discussed the pertinent standards governing review of an order granting summary judgment. See Gross v. Sussex, 332 Md. 247, 255-56, 630 A.2d 1156 (1993); Beatty v. Trailmaster Prods., Inc., 330 Md. 726, 737-39, 625 A.2d 1005 (1993); Nixon v. State, 96 Md. App. 485, 499-500, 625 A.2d 404 (1993); Fairfax Savings, F.S.B. v. Ellerin, 94 Md. App. 685, 703-04, 619 A.2d 141, cert. granted, 329 Md. 756 (1993); Hartford Ins. Co. v. Manor Inn of Bethesda, Inc., 94 Md. App. 225, 230-31, 617 A.2d 590 (1992); Seaboard Sur. Co. v. Richard F. Kline, Inc., 91 Md. App. 236, 241-45, 603 A.2d 1357 (1992). Despite this plethora of important recent cases, neither party discusses or cites to them.
Maryland Rule 2-501 provides for the granting of summary judgment "on the ground that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." The summary judgment process is not intended to substitute for a trial but merely
provides a mechanism for determination of whether there exist material facts in dispute requiring a trial. Foy v. Prudential Ins. Co., 316 Md. 418, 422, 559 A.2d 371 (1989).
Under the summary judgment rule a trial court determines issues of law and resolves no disputed facts. Beatty, 330 Md. at 737. Appellate courts reviewing an order granting a motion for summary judgment must determine whether the trial court was legally correct. Id. A motion for summary judgment can be defeated by a showing that there is a genuine dispute as to a material fact by proffering facts that would be admissible into evidence. Id. "A material fact is one which 'will somehow affect the outcome of the case.'" Seaboard Surety, 91 Md. App. at 242 (citing cases). Accord Gross, 332 Md. at 256; Nixon, 96 Md. at 499; Hartford Ins. 94 Md. App. at 231. Conversely, " dispute as to a fact 'relating to grounds upon which the decision is not rested is not a dispute as to a material fact.'" Gross, 332 Md. at 256 (quoting cases).
Because of the paramount importance of disputed facts in the summary judgment process, "when a moving party has set forth sufficient grounds for summary judgment, the party opposing the motion must show with 'some precision' that there is a genuine dispute
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Maryland DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|