holding that neither the trial court nor this court may look beyond the evidence specifically designated to the trial court
How later courts described this case
- holding that neither the trial court nor this court may look beyond the evidence specifically designated to the trial court
- “Livings [the plaintiff] confirmed the Bank’s contentions by admitting, in her response to the Bank’s motion for summary judgment, that Livings did not know what caused her fall[.]”
- affirming summary judg- ment where, even if there were a negligent condition, the plaintiff did not present evidence of how the alleged negligence caused the fall
- “[Cjausation may not be inferred merely from the existence of an allegedly negligent condition.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SHIELDS, Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur in result because, while the burden is properly applied, there is dicta in the majority decision which, in my opinion, may be misinterpreted as to the burdens the opposing parties face in a summary judgment proceeding. Therefore, I concur in result to emphasize that a nonmoving party does not have any burden whatsoever until and unless the moving party makes a prima face showing that there is no issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Only if these two showings are made by the moving party does the burden shift to the nonmoving party to show specific facts which establish the existence of a genuine issue for trial.