V & M STAR STEEL v. Centimark Corp.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8269
6th Cir.2012Background
- Contract to replace part of V & M's roof; Services defined by Agreement, Proposal, and attachments; V & M required to follow strict safety and site regulations; Bundles of heavy roofing panels staged on A-Bay above a live substation; Incident caused about $3 million in damages and power outage; District court granted summary judgment to Centimark for lack of causation evidence, reversing on appeal and remanding for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contract terms on standard of care are ambiguous | V&M argues ambiguity in standard of care | Centimark contends terms harmonize; no ambiguity | Not ambiguous; jury should decide causation issues |
| Whether Mester's expert opinion was admissible | Mester's expertise supports industry-standard kickers as required | Expert testimony excluded as irrelevant or improperly grounded | Abuse of discretion to exclude; admissible and weight to be determined by jury |
| Whether there are genuine issues of material fact on causation | Evidence shows Centimark's breach caused damages | Causation uncertain; competing theories possible | Yes, jury should resolve causation and negligence/breach questions |
| Whether res ipsa loquitur applies | Res ipsa could support negligence inference | Instrumentality not under Centimark's exclusive control | Not applicable as a matter of law; no res ipsa inference |
| Whether Centimark breached contract or was negligent as to causation and damages | Evidence supports breach and duty; damages shown | No direct causation proven beyond mere speculation | Jury must resolve; summary judgment inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine issues of material fact; summary judgment standard)
- Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1987) (weight of evidence and admissibility considerations)
- Best v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., Inc., 563 F.3d 171 (6th Cir. 2009) (admissibility and weight of expert testimony)
- In re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litig., 527 F.3d 517 (6th Cir. 2008) (expert testimony admissibility to inform jury)
- Ramage v. Central Ohio Emergency Serv., Inc., 64 Ohio St.3d 97 (1992) (common knowledge and experience exclude need for expert proof)
- Hake v. George Wiedemann Brewing Co., 262 N.E.2d 703 (Ohio 1970) (exclusive control element for res ipsa)