The plaintiff municipality brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant engineering firm for 50% of the damages paid to homeowners due to a sewage backup.
The municipality alleged the defendant's design drawings for separating storm and sewage drains were unclear, leading to the removal of an overflow mechanism.
The court found a genuine issue requiring a trial because the key witness who implemented the design in the field did not provide an affidavit.
The court ordered a mini-trial under Rule 20.04(2.2) to hear oral evidence from this witness regarding the clarity of the drawings.
