Union Pacific’s Assertions

8 In its brief on appeal, Union Pacific claims that it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law because Christiansen has not presented "any evidence that the level of [his] alleged exposures, if any, were known or even should have been known to [Union Pacific] to be hazardous."

Union Pacific correctly argues that summary judgment would be proper in this case if we determine that Christiansen failed to make a showing "'"sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to [his] case."'" Anderson Dev. Co., 2005 UT 36 at 23 (citations omitted).

However, we assess whether Christiansen has met this burden by viewing his case in light of the applicable "substantive evidentiary standard of proof" and affirm denial of the motion if Christiansen has provided the minimum of evidence to allow "a fair-minded jury" to "return a verdict for [him]." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.