Mendoza v. Brodeur
Plaintiff who did repair work on defendant's roof despite lack of licensure was not precluded from suing defendant, who lacked workers' compensation insurance, for alleged negligence resulting in plaintiff being injured in a fall. Brief averment in defendant's summary judgment motion that "[t]he evidence...establishes that no act or omission on the part of Defendant caused Plaintiff's injury" did not shift burden to plaintiff to present evidence of duty, negligence, or causation. Grant of summary judgment was error where defendant put forth no evidence regarding the exact circumstances of the accident and injury.
Comments on Mendoza v. Brodeur