Bryan v. Jacobson Dist, No. 06-4466 (6th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 07a0719n.06 Filed: October 4, 2007 No. 06-4466 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FRANK L. BRYAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO AT COLUMBUS JACOBSON DISTRIBUTION CO., Defendant-Appellee, / BEFORE: BATCHELDER and GILMAN, Circuit Judges; and STAFFORD, District Judge.* PER CURIAM. The plaintiff-appellant, Frank L. Bryan ( Bryan ), appeals the district court s entry of summary judgment for the defendant-appellee, Jacobson Distribution Company ( Jacobson ), in this diversity action alleging an intentional tort arising from a work place injury. We AFFIRM. Bryan was injured when he lost his footing while walking on the rail of a picker lift. To avoid falling from the picker lift, Bryan reached out to grab the racking system and, in the process, slammed his fourth finger into the rack, causing a severe and permanent dislocation of that finger. Bryan alleged that his injury was caused by a broken safety belt. The district court * The Honorable William H. Stafford, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern District of Florida, sitting by designation. entered summary judgment for Jacobson, finding that Bryan adduced no evidence to suggest a nexus between his injury and the broken belt. Indeed, the uncontroverted evidence established that the broken safety belt did not cause Bryan s injury, nor would an unbroken belt have prevented his injury. After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, and the parties briefs, we are convinced that the district court did not err in entering summary judgment in Jacobson s favor. Because the district court thoroughly described the evidence presented by the parties, carefully and correctly set out the law governing the issues raised, and clearly articulated the reasons underlying its decision, it would serve no useful purpose for this court to issue a full written opinion. Accordingly, we AFFIRM for the reasons stated in the district court s opinion and order.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
