Crenshaw v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
| Decision Date | 15 April 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 7174,7174 |
| Citation | 1963 NMSC 73,380 P.2d 828,72 N.M. 84 |
| Parties | Claude CRENSHAW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
William W. Osborn, Roswell, for appellant.
Atwood & Malone, Paul A. Cooter, Roswell, for appellee.
Plaintiff appeals from the action of the trial judge in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant in a case where plaintiff slipped and fell on the ice on defendant's parking lot.
From the complaint and plaintiff's affidavit filed in the cause, it appears that plaintiff entered defendant's lot at about 9:00 A.M. for the purpose of purchasing a set of snow tires. Plaintiff parked his car about 20 feet from the entrance to defendant's store, got out of the car and started around the car toward the door of the store when he fell on the snow covered ice.
It appears there had been a considerable fall of snow the day before the plaintiff's accident. However, it had not snowed after about 5:30 P.M. the day before. When plaintiff left his residence on the morning of the fall, his driveway was slippery, as were the streets. According to plaintiff, there was snow and ice all over town and he saw ice on the parking lot. There were tracks in the snow on defendant's lot. These had been made by other cars. Under this state of facts, the trial court determined as a matter of law that defendant was not negligent, and on this appeal we must decide whether it was error to so conclude.
The situation here present differs from Hallett v. Furr's, Inc., 71 N.M. 377, 378 P.2d 613, only in the fact that whereas there the storm was still in progress and had not abated, here there had been no fall of snow between 5:30 P.M., the evening before, and 9:00 A.M. the following morning, when the accident occurred. Does this difference in the fact situation require a different result?
We quote the following from Hallett v. Furr's, Inc., supra:
'Two principles are evident from these authorities, first, that the store owner must have a reasonable opportunity to correct a dangerous condition, and while a storm is in progress, as in the present case, this opportunity is not a subject of debate, and, second, even granting an opportunity might be present, where the ice or snow is smooth and level and not ridged or rutted, the store owner had not greater duty to prevent injury than the invitee has to protect himself or herself, since the dangers involved are universally known and are equally apparent to each party.'
Whereas, the first part in the quotation disposed of the issues in Hallett, the second covers the instant case. We do not think there is room for disagreement among reasonable men that the dangers present under the facts considered in a light most favorable to plaintiff, were universally known and equally apparent to both plaintiff and defendant, and accordingly, there is no liability.
Under such circumstances, we held in De Baca v. Kahn, 49...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Honolulu Limited v. Cain
...that plaintiff and the defendant, and, accordingly, there should be no liability imposed upon the defendant. Crenshaw v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 72 N.M. 84, 380 P.2d 828 (1963); Watts v. Holmes, 386 P.2d 718 I am of the opinion that there was no legally sufficient evidence to show that......
-
Isaacson v. Husson College
...to each party, and do not allow recovery. See, Schleisman v. Dolezal, 1963, 254 Iowa 1114, 120 N.W.2d 398; Crenshaw v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, 1963, 72 N.M. 84, 380 P.2d 828; Standard Oil Company v. Manis, 1968, Ky., 433 S.W.2d 856. The rationale underlying such doctrine (See, Sidl......
-
Parsons v. Amerada Hess Corporation
...The Supreme Court of New Mexico has adopted and applied Section 343 to "slip and fall" business invitees, Crenshaw v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, 72 N.M. 84, 380 P.2d 828, and Sandoval v. Board of Regents of New Mexico State University, 75 N.M. 261, 403 P.2d 699, and to unguarded dange......
-
Hanson v. Town & Country Shopping Center, Inc.
...v. Jewel Tea Company, 39 Ill.App.2d 217, 188 N.E.2d 383; Brent v. Bank of Aurora, 132 Colo. 577, 291 P.2d 391; Crenshaw v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 72 N.M. 84, 380 P.2d 828; Nolan v. United States (4th Cir.) 186 F.2d There is a further reason for sustaining the directed verdict. In my o......