City of Grand Junction v. Eichelberger

• Decision Date: 02 February 1959
• Docket Number: No. 18718,18718
• Citation: City of Grand Junction v. Eichelberger, 334 P.2d 1095 (Colo. 1959)
• Parties: CITY OF GRAND JUNCTION, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. Mary EICHELBERGER, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Page 1095

334 P.2d 1095

138 Colo. 479

CITY OF GRAND JUNCTION, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v.Mary EICHELBERGER, Defendant in Error.

No. 18718.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

Feb 2. 1959.

Gerald J. Ashby, City Atty., Grand Junction, for plaintiff in error.

Adams, Heckman, Traylor & Ela, by T. J. Harshman, Grand Junction, for defendant in error.

MOORE, Justice.

In this action defendant in error, to whom we will refer as plaintiff, recovered judgment against the City of Grand Junction for personal injuries sustained by her in a fall on a public sidewalk upon which there was an accumulation of ice and snow.The city, seeking a reversal of the judgment, brings the cause here for review by writ of error.

On behalf of the city it is argued: (1) That there was insufficient evidence offered by plaintiff to establish any negligence on the part of the city; (2) that under the undisputed evidence plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law; (3) that an ordinance of the city requiring the abutting property owner to keep the public sidewalk free from accumulations of snow and ice places responsibility upon him for injuries resulting from the presence of ice and snow on the sidewalk; and (4) that the court erred in overruling defendant's motion for dismissal upon that ground.

The circumstances surrounding the accident resulting in the injury to plaintiff were as follows: Plaintiff, a woman seventy years of age, left her home at about 9:00 A.M. to walk four city blocks to the place where she was employed.The weather was very cold but clear.Commencing at about the point where she fell and on in the direction of her destination the snow had not been cleared away but a small path had been made by people walking through it.On the morning of the accident the snow was eleven inches deep on either side of the walk.Little or no snow had fallen since January 27--plaintiff fell on February 5th.The sidewalk at the point where she fell was icy.From that point eastward to the end of the block the snow had never been cleared away.The adjacent property owner testified that, 'There might have been a little skiff of ice under there on the other end, * * *'(the place plaintiff fell).He further testified that a driveway crossing the sidewalk next door to him 'leads down to may sidewalk' and that the walk is depressed so that 'I expect three-eighths or half an inch of water that might stand on that walk.'The driveway is 'quite a bit higher' than the sidewalk, and when snow melts the water runs down the driveway to the depressed...