Issues And Standard Of Review

6 Christiansen appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Union Pacific, asserting that the limitations period had not run when he filed his claim. Union Pacific cross-appeals, claiming that even if Christiansen's claim were not time-barred, the trial court should have granted its motion on the ground that he had failed to produce evidence of Union Pacific's negligence.

We affirm summary judgment only "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c). Summary judgment is appropriate against a party who, after discovery, fails to "set forth facts '"sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case."'" Anderson Dev. Co. v. Tobias, 2005 UT 36,23, 116 P.3d 323 (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (other citation omitted)).

In assessing whether Christiansen has made a sufficient showing to withstand summary judgment, we take into account "the substantive evidentiary standard of proof that would apply at a trial on the merits," and affirm the denial of Union Pacific's motion for summary judgment if we conclude that "a fair-minded jury could return a verdict for [Christiansen] on the evidence presented." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986); see also Andalex Res., Inc. v. Myers, 871 P.2d 1041, 1046 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) ("In granting a motion for summary judgment, a trial judge must consider each element of the claim under the appropriate standard of proof")).