Elstun v. Spangles, Inc.
Decision Date | 09 October 2009 |
Docket Number | No. 98,179.,98,179. |
Citation | 217 P.3d 450 |
Parties | Violetta ELSTUN, Appellant, v. SPANGLES, INC., Appellee. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Mitchell W. Rice, of Bretz Law Offices, of Hutchinson, argued the cause, and Matthew W. Bretz, of the same firm, was with him on the brief for appellant.
Gerald L. Green, of Gilliland & Hayes, P.A., of Hutchinson, argued the cause, and Melissa A. Moodie, of the same firm, was with him on the briefs for appellee.
In this slip-and-fall personal injury action, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant property owner, applying the "slight-defect rule" regarding sidewalks to the owner's parking lot and determining as a matter of law that the defendant had no duty to protect the plaintiff from the slight defect that allegedly caused her injury. The Court of Appeals reversed, refusing to extend the slight-defect rule to defendant's parking lot. Elstun v. Spangles, Inc., 40 Kan.App.2d 458, 193 P.3d 478 (2008). On petition for review, we agree with and affirm the Court of Appeals decision, reverse the district court, and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings.
The facts giving rise to plaintiff's action are adequately set forth in the Court of Appeals opinion:
Elstun v. Spangles, Inc., 40 Kan.App.2d at 459, 193 P.3d 478.
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. 40 Kan.App.2d at 465, 193 P.3d 478. For reasons set forth in its opinion, the Court of Appeals refused to extend the slight-defect rule, which had previously been applied only to certain sidewalks, to Spangles' parking lot. Instead, the court concluded that the rule enunciated in numerous cases regarding the duty of an occupier of property to exercise reasonable care for those invited or lawfully upon the premises should apply. 40 Kan. App.2d at 462-65, 193 P.3d 478. Under this standard:
Jones v. Hansen, 254 Kan. 499, 509-10, 867 P.2d 303 (1994).
This court granted Spangles' petition for review. The sole issue for our determination is as follows: Whether the slight-defect rule, which provides generally that property owners have no duty to repair slight defects in sidewalks not caused by their own making, should be extended to parking lots.
Negligence is defined as "the lack of ordinary care" or, more specifically, "the failure of a person to do something that a reasonably careful person would do, or the act of a person in doing something that a reasonably careful person would not do, measured by all the circumstances then existing [citation omitted]." Johnston, Administratrix v. Ecord, 196 Kan. 521, 528, 412 P.2d 990 (1966). In a personal injury action based upon negligence, the plaintiff must prove "the existence of a duty, breach of that duty, injury, and a causal connection between the duty breached and the injury suffered." Nero v. Kansas State University, 253 Kan. 567, Syl. ¶ 1, 861 P.2d 768 (1993).
In the vast majority of cases, claims based on negligence present factual determinations for the jury, not legal questions for the court. Deal v. Bowman, 286 Kan. 853, 859, 188 P.3d 941 (2008). This general rule notwithstanding, questions regarding the existence of a duty of care are purely legal determinations. Nero, 253 Kan. 567, Syl. ¶ 1, 861 P.2d 768. If a court concludes that a defendant did not have a duty to act in a certain manner toward the plaintiff, then the defendant cannot be liable to the plaintiff for negligence. See Sepulveda v. Duckwall-Alco Stores, Inc., 238 Kan. 35, 38-40, 708 P.2d 171 (1985). In such cases, a court may correctly grant summary judgment in the defendant's favor. See 238 Kan. at 40, 708 P.2d 171.
Since 1935, Kansas courts have applied a judicially created rule that "[s]light and inconvenient defects in the sidewalk of a city street do not furnish basis for actionable negligence, even though a pedestrian may trip, fall, and injure [himself or] herself on account of such a trivial defect." (Emphasis added.) Ford v. City of Kinsley, 141 Kan. 877, Syl. ¶ 1, 44 P.2d 225 (1935); see also Biby v. City of Wichita, 151 Kan. 981, Syl. ¶ 1, 101 P.2d 919 (1940) ().
Although cases that apply this slight-defect rule generally use the terms "actionable negligence" or "actionable defect," this court explained in Taggart v. Kansas City, 156 Kan. 478, 134 P.2d 417 (1943), that the rule is actually based on the definition of the duty owed by municipalities or property owners to pedestrians using the walkways in question. Specifically with regard to municipalities, Taggart reasoned that (Emphasis added.) 156 Kan. at 480, 134 P.2d 417. To "impose a greater duty upon cities would be to place upon them too great a financial burden." 156 Kan. at 480, 134 P.2d 417.
All of the early cases applying the slight-defect rule involved municipal liability for public walkways. As time wore on, however, this court applied the same rule in actions against individuals or private corporations whose property abutted a public sidewalk. See Sepulveda, 238 Kan. at 38, 708 P.2d 171.
This case comes before the court as an appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of Spangles. On appeal, this court applies the same rules that a district court utilizes when considering summary judgment motions. When pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment is appropriate. State ex rel. Stovall v. Reliance Ins. Co., 278 Kan. 777, 788, 107 P.3d 1219 (2005). However, if ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hauptman v. Wmc, Inc.
...of cases, claims based on negligence present factual determinations for the jury, not legal questions for the court." Elstun v. Spangles, Inc., 289 Kan. 754, Syl. ¶ 2, 217 P.3d 450 (2009). Summary judgment is proper in a negligence action, however, if the only questions presented are questi......
-
Estate of Randolph v. City of Wichita
...reasonable person would not do under the circumstances or failing to do something a reasonable person would do. Elstun v. Spangles, Inc. , 289 Kan. 754, 756, 217 P.3d 450 (2009). So a defendant's affirmative conduct or inaction may be negligent depending on the circumstances. Whether a duty......
- Manley v. Hallbauer
-
Kaminski v. United States
...negligence claims present questions of fact for a jury to decide, not legal questions for the court to rule. Elstun v. Spangles, Inc. , 289 Kan. 754, 217 P.3d 450, 453 (2009) (citation omitted). But the question whether a duty of care exists is a legal determination for the court. Id. (citi......