This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Personal Injury

Casey Armstrong v. AG Production Services, AG Light and Sound and Does 1 to 20

Published: Jan. 21, 2022 | Result Date: Jan. 6, 2022 | Filing Date: May 3, 2021 |

Case number: 21CV385216 Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

Socrates P. Manoukian

Court

El Dorado County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

William J. Carlisle
(Law Office of William J. Carlisle)


Defendant

Christopher J. Beeman
(Clapp Moroney Vucinich Beeman Scheley)

Adrianne C. Duncan
(Clapp, Moroney, Vucinich, Beeman & Scheley APC)


Facts

AG Production Services is a Las Vegas production company specializing in lighting, audio, video, staging, and design for live music events and festivals. Casey Armstrong, a trained and experienced stagehand, was hired to install and dismantle production equipment for the NFL tailgate party for Super Bowl 50. Armstrong obtained the position through staffing agency Gary D. Nelson Associates, Inc. AG's lighting and audio company, AG Light and Sound, Inc., was contracted by Party Planners West, Inc. to stage the event. While on the job, Armstrong was injured and subsequently filed an action against AG Production Services and AG Light and Sound.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that he sustained personal injuries because of defendants' negligence; that defendants owed him a duty to act in a reasonable manner to prevent injuries; that defendants breached that duty; and that defendants' negligence was the proximate and legal cause of the damages sustained by plaintiff.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all contentions. Defendants asserted that they did not owe a duty to plaintiff; that plaintiff was careless and negligent, contributing to his own injuries; that plaintiff was not an employee of defendants, rather plaintiff was hired as an independent contractor for construction of the event; that plaintiff was working in the course and scope of his employment at the time that he was injured, so his employer's negligence was a substantial factor in contributing to the cause of plaintiff's injuries; and that any dangerous condition on the construction site where the alleged accident occurred was open and obvious and was within the scope of the work for which plaintiff and his employer were retained. Defendants also contended that plaintiff, with full appreciation of the particular risks involved, knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risks and hazards of the activity complained of.

Damages

Plaintiff claimed medical expenses and lost wages.

Injuries

Plaintiff claimed that he sustained injuries requiring medical treatment and causing continued physical symptoms.

Result

Summary judgment was granted in favor of defendants.


#138343

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390