Bondy v. Allen
Minnesota Court of Appeals
635 N.W.2d 244 (2001)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Kathryn Bondy (plaintiff) was walking in a designated crosswalk when she was struck by a car driven by Carey Allen (defendant). The car was owned by Jeffrey Allen (defendant). An ambulance was called, and Gold Cross Ambulance Service, Inc. (Gold Cross) (defendant) responded and arrived at the scene. A paramedic assessed Bondy’s injuries and placed her in the ambulance on a gurney. Initially, the paramedic secured Bondy to the gurney with safety straps. The paramedic continued to assess Bondy’s injuries while the ambulance was driven to the hospital. During this assessment, the paramedic removed a couple of the straps to remove a coat from her legs. The movement of the ambulance caused Bondy’s leg to fall off of the gurney, and Bondy screamed in pain. The paramedic moved her leg back onto the gurney and secured it with the safety straps again. Bondy and her husband (plaintiff) sued Carey and Jeffrey Allen and Gold Cross, alleging negligence. Gold Cross moved for summary judgment, arguing that there was insufficient evidence that the actions of the paramedic caused any compensable damage. The trial court denied the motion. After the trial began, the Allens settled with Bondy. Gold Cross then moved to exclude all evidence of the damages caused by the car accident. Rather than ruling on this motion, the trial court granted summary judgment to Gold Cross. Bondy appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lindberg, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 780,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.