Orme Sch. v. Reeves - 166 Ariz. 301, 802 P.2d 1000 (1990)

Rule:

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the trial court should consider both the quantum and quality of evidence required by the applicable substantive standard. If the substantive law required clear and convincing evidence to support an element of the claim or defense, the court might grant summary judgment if, in considering a motion for directed verdict on the same evidentiary basis, it would have concluded that the evidence presented was so "one-sided" it failed to satisfy the plaintiff's burden.

Facts:

Orme is a private boarding school located near Mayer, Arizona that provides secondary education to its students. Ryan W. Mills (Mills) was a student at Orme in the fall of 1987 when he contracted salmonella food poisoning. The infection was evidently quite serious and has attacked Mills' spine. Mills brought a damage action against Orme, which had provided its students with meals during the period in which Mills contracted salmonella. He also joined College World Services, Inc. (CWS) as a defendant, alleging that CWS, the school's food service contractor, had provided the food Orme served its students. Orme filed a motion for summary judgment on its crossclaim against CWS for indemnity. The motion for summary judgment  was denied. Orme claimed that the trial judge abused his discretion and acted without legal authority in denying its motion for summary judgment.

Issue:

Did the trial court err in denying Orme’s motion for summary judgment?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court held: 1) that the trial judge should have applied the same standards for a directed verdict at trial in ruling on the motion for summary judgment; 2) that the applicable evidentiary standard for Mills’ tort action was a preponderance of the evidence; 3) that even though the contractor raised a scintilla of evidence, the trial judge would have been required to direct a verdict in favor of Orme; 4) that no reasonable juror could have concluded by a preponderance of the evidence that Orme was actively responsible for Mills’ injury; and 5) that the trial judge should have granted summary judgment in favor of Orme.