Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND __________________________________________ MICHAEL E. MALDONADO ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) MILLSTONE ENTERPRISES, INC., et al. ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________)

Civil Action No. WGC-06-103

MEMORANDUM OPINION Pending before the Court and ready for resolution are Defendant Millstone Enterprises, Inc.'s ("Millstone") Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 19) and Defendant Forrester Construction Company's ("Forrester") Motion for Summary Judgment1 (Document No. 21). Plaintiff filed a Response (Document No. 32) and Defendant Millstone a Reply2 (Document No. 35). A motions hearing was held on January 3, 2007. The Court now rules pursuant to Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2004). I. BACKGROUND Defendant Forrester leased a material hoist3 from Defendant Millstone to use at Forrester's job site at the National Security Agency at Fort Meade, Maryland. The material hoist was manufactured by Champion Elevator Company. On or about November 25, 2002, Patrick

1 2 3

Defendant Forrester adopts the arguments and reasoning of its co-Defendant, Millstone. Defendant Forrester did not file a Reply.

In his Complaint Plaintiff identifies this item as an elevator. It is more accurately called a material hoist, which is a portable elevator like device that is set up on the outside of a building, and operated by an individual who sits at ground level and raises and lowers the hoist.

1

Kiker, a twenty-five year employee of Millstone4, erected and installed the material hoist at Forrester's job site. Forrester did not purchase a maintenance contract from Millstone that would have provided all required maintenance and periodic inspections of the material hoist. Millstone's Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. ("Millstone's Memo."), Ex. 3 (Kiker Aff.

Download Maldonado v. Millstone Enterprises, Inc., et al. (Memo).pdf

Maryland Law