PER CURIAM: Plaintiffs appeal from a
summary judgment rendered in favor of Defendant United Rentals (North America), Inc. (“United Rentals”) dismissing Plaintiffs’ suit for personal injury arising out of a fall sustained on equipment rented from United Rentals. Finding no error, we affirm. Plaintiff Shawn Monaghan’s employer, Mechanical Insulation, Inc., rented a scissor-Iift from Defendant United Rentals. While using the scissor-lift to install insulation materials, Plaintiff fell when a handrail failed, apparently because of missing bolts.
Scott Miley (“Miley”), the lead foreman and Plaintiffs supervisor, stated that he had inspected the lift on March 11, 2009, when it was received from the Defendant, that it was in good condition, and that he found no missing bolts in the handrail. Upon inspection, he signed a “Quality Condition Report” to that effect. Plaintiffs accident happened on April 6, 2009, almost a month after the employer received the lift. Miley testified that iron workers borrowed the lift for “practically a month” and “apparently they altered it.” The district court granted
summary judgment for Defendant United Rentals because no
summary judgment evidence was produced indicating the lift had defects when it left Defendant’s hands, and Defendant produced affirmative evidence that it had no defects when delivered. As the lift was used by other parties for nearly a month after Defendant relinquished control, no inference arises that it was defective when delivered. Further, while Plaintiff contends that the district court erred in granting
summary judgment based on the testimony of Miley because Miley is not credible, the issue presented is not one of credibility, but rather of proof. No evidence presented by Plaintiff contradicted the sworn testimony of Miley or the Quality Condition Report signed by Miley at the time of delivery. We agree with the district court that no genuine issue of material fact was presented and
summary judgment was proper. For the above reasons and the reasons stated by the district court in its careful memorandum ruling of May 10, 2012, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.