Brandert v. Scottsbluff Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 40074
| Citation | 194 Neb. 777,235 N.W.2d 864 |
| Decision Date | 04 December 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 40074,40074 |
| Parties | Dorothy I. BRANDERT, Appellant, v. SCOTTSBLUFF NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, a corporation, formerly known as Scottsbluff National Bank, a corporation, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, Appellee, v. Abraham ESCAMILLA, d/b/a National Janitorial Service, Defendant and Third-Party Defendant, Appellee. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Nebraska |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A business inviter owes a duty to exercise ordinary care to keep the approaches to his place of business reasonably safe for the use of customers.
2. There is no liability on the part of an inviter owner to protect a customer against hazards which are known to the customer and are so apparent that he may reasonably be expected to discover them and be able to protect himself.
3. Generally, a store owner may not be charged with negligence by reason of the natural accumulation of ice and snow due to weather conditions, where he has not created the condition, and where the hazardous condition is as well-known to the invitee as to the store owner.
Meister & Morrison, Scottsbluff, for appellant.
Wright & Simmons, Scottsbluff, for Scottsbluff Nat. Bank.
Holtorf, Hansen, Kovarik & Nuttleman, P.C., Byron, J. Brogan, Gering, Robert M. Harris, Scottsbluff, for National Janitorial Service.
Heard before WHITE, C.J., BOSLAUGH, McCOWN, and BRODKEY, JJ., and TESAR, District Judge.
This is a negligence action against the Scottsbluff National Bank and Trust Company for injuries suffered when the plaintiff fell on some ice in front of the bank. The District Court directed a verdict for the defendants. The plaintiff appeals that decision. We affirm the judgment of the District Court.
The plaintiff, Mrs. Brandert, on December 24, 1968, came to work at the greenhouse which she and her husband owned in Scottsbluff, Nebraska. Around noon, it started to mist, and the mist soon began to freeze. Mrs. Brandert was continually running 'in and out all day,' and testified that she noticed it was slippery outside. In fact, during the day, Mrs. Brandert was with a woman who slipped and fell because of the icy conditions. At approximately 6:30 p.m., the plaintiff and her husband left the greenhouse and stopped at the bank to make a deposit. It being Christmas Eve, the bank was closed, and so the plaintiff used a mailer wallet, furnished by the bank, to make the deposit. This procedure involved placing the mailer wallet in an envelope furnished by the bank and then slipping it into the envelope depository. This depository was a slot on the outside of the bank building into which envelopes could be dropped. As the plaintiff approached the bank, she walked very carefully due to the icy conditions. However, as she reached to place the envelope in the depository, she slipped and fell, injuring her forearm and wrist. The plaintiff brought this negligence action against the bank seeking to recover damages for her injury.
The plaintiff argues that there was sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of the bank to submit the issue of its negligence to the jury.
A business inviter owes a duty to exercise ordinary care to keep the approaches to his place of business reasonably safe for the use of customers. Maxwell v. Lewis, 186 Neb. 722, 186 N.W.2d 119; Crawford v. Soennichsen, 175 Neb. 87, 120 N.W.2d 578. However, there is no liability on the part of an inviter owner to protect a customer against hazards which are known to the customer and are so apparent that he may reasonably be expected to discover them and be able to protect himself. Crawford v. Soennichsen, supra. In Nance v. Ames Plaza, Inc., 177 Neb. 88, 128 N.W.2d 564, we said as follows: 'If however the conditions and circumstances are such that the invitee has knowledge of the condition in advance,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrison v. Taylor, 17002
...Ill.Dec. 671, 433 N.E.2d 713 (2-1) (no duty to guard against natural accumulations of snow and ice); Brandert v. Scottsbluff National Bank & Trust Co., 1975, 194 Neb. 777, 235 N.W.2d 864; Chadwick v. Barba Lou, Inc., 1982, 69 Ohio St.2d 222, 431 N.E.2d 660 (but sufficient evidence of highly......
-
Woods v. Prices Corner Shopping Center Merchants Ass'n
...the owner or occupier of the premises. See Sherman v. Platte County, Wyo.Supr., 642 P.2d 787 (1982); Brandert v. Scottsbluff Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 194 Neb. 777, 235 N.W.2d 864 (1975); Smalling v. LaSalle Nat. Bank of Chicago, 104 Ill.App.3d 894, 60 Ill.Dec. 671, 433 N.E.2d 713 (1982). The ......
-
Kliewer v. Wall Const. Co.
...of the inviter, then it may not be said that the inviter is guilty of actionable negligence.' " Brandert v. Scottsbluff Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 194 Neb. 777, 779, 235 N.W.2d 864, 866 (1975) (quoting Nance v. Ames Plaza, Inc., 177 Neb. 88, 128 N.W.2d 564 (1964)). Brandert held that the superi......
-
Robertson v. U Save Foods, Inc.
...open base that U Save should have known about that Ellen could not have similarly known about. See Brandert v. Scottsbluff Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 194 Neb. 777, 235 N.W.2d 864 (1975) (when conditions and circumstances are such that the invitee has knowledge of the condition in advance, or s......