We must "consider whether the competent evidential materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, are sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the non-moving party." Brill v. Because we review the same documentary record as the trial court, we determine without deference to the trial court's ruling whether disputed issues of fact exist for determination by a jury and, if not, whether the trial court correctly applied the applicable law. Our standard of review from a summary judgment is plenary. We reverse the summary judgment in part and remand for trial on the potential vicarious liability of Harrah's for the alleged intentional tort of assault by the security officers. They allege that Harrah's is liable to them for injuries caused to Jean Smith when Harrah's security officers allegedly assaulted him. Plaintiffs Jean Smith and his wife, Marie Smith, appeal from summary judgment dismissing their complaint against defendant Harrah's Casino Resort of Atlantic City. Respondent (Camacho Mauro Mulholland, L.L.P., attorneys Mr. Jude Nelson argued the cause for appellantsĬhristopher C. Law Division, Atlantic County, Docket No. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Before Judges Yannotti, Ashrafi and Leone.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |