the exclusive control of the defendant.’ ” Jones v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 314 A.2d 459, 461 (D.C. 1974) (citations omitted). In this case, it is unclear 1) what caused a wire to fall on plaintiff, and 2) what wire fell on plaintiff, and 3) what line was struck by the Capitol Paving dump truck. In other words, although the parties agree that the mechanism of plaintiffs injuries was a falling wire, they dispute the cause of his injury — in other words, they disagree over what caused the wire to fall and which wire fell. Londono, 766 F.2d at 572. These genuine issues of material fact thus preclude the Court from concluding, at the summary judgment stage, whether or not plaintiff may prevail against Chesapeake based on a theory of res ipsa loquitur. See Westinghouse, 842 F.Supp. at 591 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff will therefore be permitted to
holding that a probable cause determination is appropriate for summary judgment where there are no genuine issues of material fact and no credibility issues holding that summary judgment was improper where genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether prison officials prevented inmate from filing grievances holding that when there are no genuine issues of material fact summary judgment is appropriate holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment holding that summary judgment on plaintiffs res ipsa loquitur theory was precluded both because there existed genuine issues of material fact as to the cause of the accident and whether or not one of the defendants had exclusive control over the instrumentality of the accident