Elliott v. Hill
| Decision Date | 11 December 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 19636,19636 |
| Citation | 148 Colo. 553,366 P.2d 663 |
| Parties | Helen ELLIOTT and Earl Elliott, Plaintiffs in Error, v. George A. HILL, doing business as George A. Hill Engineering and Supply Co., Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Patrick H. Slattery, Kansas City, Mo., Elizabeth L. Guyton, Rocky Ford, for plaintiffs in error.
Phelps, Fonda & Hays, Pueblo, for defendant in error.
We will refer to the parties as they appeared in the trial court where plaintiffs in error were plaintiffs and defendant in error was defendant.
On November 21, 1956, and shortly prior thereto, defendant was engaged in the construction of a curb and gutter along the north side of a public school building in La Junta, Colorado. Plaintiffs are husband and wife. They alleged in their complaint that in the construction of said curb and gutter defendant caused an excavation to be made at or near a point where pedestrians seeking to enter the school building might, and did, cross. They alleged that defendant placed, or allowed to be placed, a boardwalk from the surface of the ground on an incline to the top of the curb across the excavation for the use of pedestrians entering or leaving the school building at that point. Plaintiffs further alleged that the said boardwalk was not sufficiently anchored to keep it from slipping or falling, and that defendant knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known that failure to secure the walk might result in injury to persons making use thereof in crossing the excavation. It was alleged that plaintiff Helen Elliott was injured as a result of the board slipping as she walked upon it, causing her to fall into the excavation. Damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained as a result of such fall were sought by plaintiffs.
Defendant denied negligence on his part and affirmatively alleged contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff Helen Elliott, unavoidable accident, and assumption of risk.
At the close of the evidence the court granted defendant's motion for a directed verdict. Judgment entered accordingly and plaintiffs are here on writ of error seeking reversal.
The trial court granted the motion, '* * * for the reason * * * that there is no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant * * *.' Upon review of a judgment entered upon a directed verdict, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the verdict was directed, and if it is such that different conclusions might be drawn by fair-minded men as to whether negligence is shown, then the question is one to be determined by the jury. Peterson v. Kessler, 135 Colo. 102, 308 P.2d 610. The function of the court in such circumstances does not go beyond the duty to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Romero v. Denver & R. G. W. Ry. Co.
...the most favorable evidence must be indulged in his favor. Lee v. Missouri Pacific R. R. Co., 152 Colo. 179, 381 P.2d 35; Elliott v. Hill, 148 Colo. 553, 366 P.2d 663. The main contention of plaintiff is that the snow was piled high along the railroad right-of-way so that an oncoming motori......
-
Mayer v. Sampson
...be drawn by fair-minded men as to whether negligence is shown, the question must be left to a jury for its determination. Elliott v. Hill, 148 Colo. 553, 366 P.2d 663. The evidence brought out in this case, as set forth above, obviously presented such a jury The next two assignments of erro......
-
Lee v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.
...from the most favorable evidence should be indulged in his favor. Gossard v. Watson, 122 Colo. 271, 221 P.2d 353; Elliott v. Hill, 148 Colo. 553, 366 P.2d 663. There was evidence sufficient to support a conclusion by the jury that this was a particularly dangerous crossing and that there we......
-
CeBuzz, Inc. v. Sniderman, 22358
...be drawn by fair-minded men as to whether negligence is shown, then the question is one to be determined by the jury. Elliott v. Hill, 148 Colo. 553, 366 P.2d 663; Peterson v. Kessler, 135 Colo. 102, 308 P.2d It is our conclusion that the evidence established defendant's negligence as a mat......