Summary Judgment on a Disputed Fact
A pedestrian sues a city bus authority after being struck in a crosswalk. The authority moves for summary judgment, attaching the driver's affidavit stating he 'had the green light and never saw the plaintiff.' The plaintiff responds with her own affidavit saying the walk signal was in her favor, plus a surveillance video that is grainy and does not clearly show the light color, and an accident-reconstruction expert who opines the bus was traveling 12 mph over the posted limit but cannot say who had the right of way. The authority argues the plaintiff's affidavit is self-serving and that the video and expert report are too speculative to create a genuine dispute. The court must decide the motion.
1. What is the standard, and does a genuine dispute of material fact exist?
Read the worked answer
Summary judgment is proper only when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court views evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and draws reasonable inferences in her favor.
The driver's affidavit is evidence, but it is not conclusive just because it is unrebutted in kind. The plaintiff's affidavit directly contradicts the driver on the light color. Whether the plaintiff's account is 'self-serving' affects weight, not admissibility, and credibility is for the jury. The walk-signal fact is material because it determines fault.
The video's poor quality does not eliminate the dispute; it simply may not resolve it. The expert's speeding opinion is relevant to comparative or contributory negligence even if it cannot establish right of way.
Conclusion: a genuine dispute exists on the light color and on speed. Summary judgment should be denied.
2. How should the court treat the expert's inability to opine on right of way?
Read the worked answer
The expert need not prove the whole case. An expert may testify to a discrete issue-speed-if the opinion is reliable and helpful. The inability to opine on right of way limits the opinion's scope but does not make the speed opinion speculative.
The authority's objection goes to weight and to the sufficiency of the expert's basis, which the court can test at a reliability hearing. If the 12-mph estimate rests on accepted reconstruction methods, it is admissible and creates a factual issue on negligence. If it is a bare guess, the court may exclude it-but even then the plaintiff's affidavit on the walk signal alone defeats summary judgment.
Ruling: deny summary judgment; the expert's limited scope is not a basis for dismissal.