The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
00-2408•Helen M. Lomax v. Schindler Elevator Corporation
00-2408Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 3, 2001
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-2408
HELEN M. LOMAX,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
Judge. (CA-00-199-7)
Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 3, 2001
Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carr L. Kinder, Jr., CARR L. KINDER, JR., P.C., Roanoke, Virginia,
for Appellant. Victor S. Skaff, III, GENTRY, LOCKE, RAKES & MOORE,
Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Helen M. Lomax appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment in favor of Schindler Elevator Corporation in her
action in which she alleged a product liability claim and that
Schindler’s negligence caused an elevator door to close too quickly
on her, injuring her arm and shoulder. We have reviewed the briefs
and the joint appendix and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Lomax v.
Schindler Elevator Corp., No. CA-00-199-7 (W.D. Va. filed Oct. 2,
2000; entered Oct. 3, 2000). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.