Marc Moore v. City of Sedalia etc.

1The Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, Judge, United States Court of
International Trade, sitting by designation.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 00-3144
___________
William Thurmond *
*
Plaintiff-Appellant, *
*
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Eastern District of Missouri
*
William Wilkenloh and Karen *
Wilkenloh, his wife, Individually * [UNPUBLISHED]
and as Trustee of the Karen M. *
Wilkenloh Revocable Living Trust *
*
Defendants-Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: April 11, 2001
Filed: October 5, 2001
___________
Before WOLLMAN AND MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG,1 Judge.
___________
PER CURIAM.

-- 1 of 2 --

2The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri.
-2-
Plaintiff-appellant, William Thurmond, appeals the district court’s2 order
granting defendants-appellees’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Thurmond brought
suit against the defendants-appellees claiming they were liable for the injuries he
sustained during a fall from the roof of their home while performing roof work.
Thurmond was employed at the time of the accident by an independent contractor
hired by the defendants-appellees. Subject matter jurisdiction was established by
diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (1994).
Thurmond claims that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment
because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Thurmond was
injured as a result of an inherently dangerous activity. We affirm the decision of the
district court.
After a careful examination of the record, this Court finds that the trial court
did not commit error by granting the defendants-appellees’ Motion for Summary
Judgment. The trial court correctly determined, as a matter of Missouri law, that the
roofing work was not inherently dangerous. See Hatch v. V.P. Fair Foundation, Inc.,
990 S.W.2d 126, 136 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990) (“If . . . the trial court concludes the
activity does not involve some peculiar risk of harm, then the activity is not
inherently dangerous as a matter of law.”); Hofstetter v. Union Electric Co., 724
S.W.2d 527, 529-30 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986). Under Eighth Circuit Rule 47B, no further
commentary is warranted.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

-- 2 of 2 --