Epps v. Remmel
| Decision Date | 16 December 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 5-3139,5-3139 |
| Parties | Edith EPPS, Appellant, v. Harmon REMMEL, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
M. V. Moody, Little Rock, for appellant.
McMillen, Teague & Bramhall, Little Rock, for appellee.
Appellant, Edith Epps, filed this personal injury suit in the Pulaski Circuit Court alleging that she received bodily injuries when she stepped in a hole in the sidewalk which adjoins appellee's property on Main Street in Little Rock. Appellee, Remmel, answered denying the allegations of the complaint. Later, defendant filed a motion for a summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion, rendered a judgment in favor of the defendant, Remmel, and the plaintiff, Epps, has appealed.
One of the grounds for the granting of a summary judgment is that there is no genuine issue as to a material fact. Ark.Stat.Anno. § 29-211 (Repl.1962).
Ark.Stat.Anno. § 19-3806 (Repl.1956) gives cities of the first class the power to require by ordinance, resolution, or order, that owners of property abutting on its streets build, maintain and repair sidewalks. It is said that Little Rock has such an ordinance, and to give appellant the benefit of any doubt on that point, in this case, we will assume that there is such an ordinance.
The allegations in the complaint that must be considered in determining whether the trial court was correct in rendering a summary judgment are as follows:
'Plaintiff alleges that at the time of the accident hereinafter described the sidewalk hereinbefore mentioned was out of repair and in an unsafe and dangerous condition for the passage of pedestrians over it.
'That on the 19th day of December, 1961, about 9:30 o'clock A.M. plaintiff was walking along said sidewalk in front of the property of defendant, and stepped and fell into a hole in said sidewalk and violently fell on said street, as a result of which she sustained the injuries hereinafter set out.
'That the negligence of the defendant consisted of the following: Carelessly and negligently and unlawfully leaving the holes in said sidewalk open and unprotected; that defendant knew or should have known the dangerous condition to the sidewalk; that defendant maintained a nuisance and a menace to those lawfully in and about the said street, and compelled to use said sidewalk; in failing and neglecting to cause the street to be made reasonably safe for persons passing along such street before the occurrence of the slipping and falling of plaintiff.
In support of his motion for a summary judgment, appellee property owner filed an affidavit stating in substance: That he inherited the property; that it was held in trust for him until he became 35 years of age in 1951, at which time the property was conveyed to him; that the sidewalk in front of the property is in the same condition as it was when he inherited the property; that he has not at any time had any demand or request from the city to do any maintenance or repairs on the sidewalk, and that he has done none. Appellant filed no response to the affidavit.
Assuming for the purposes of this decision that a city ordinance requires the property owner to repair the sidewalk adjoining his property and appellant failed to comply...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sleeper v. Sweetser
...a genuine issue.'' See, also, Douglas et al. v. Citizens Bank of Jonesboro, 244 Ark. 168, 424 S.W.2d 532 (1968), and Epps v. Remmel, 237 Ark. 391, 373 S.W.2d 141 (1963). We recently had occasion to consider the effect of a failure to respond to an affidavit supporting a motion for summary j......
-
Van Dalsen v. Inman
...summary judgment statute are: Russell v. City of Rogers, 236 Ark. (Adv.Op.) 713, 368 S.W.2d 89; Epps v. Remmel, 237 Ark. (Adv.Op.) 391, 373 S.W.2d 141; and Jones v. Comer, 237 Ark. (Adv.Op.) 500, 374 S.W.2d 465. In Russell v. City of Rogers supra, we 'Our recent summary judgment statute, Ac......
-
Gordon v. Matson, 5--4646
...upon the undisputed facts established by the pretrial order then the order granting summary judgment must be affirmed. Epps v. Remmel, 237 Ark. 391, 373 S.W.2d 141; Jones v. Comer, 237 Ark 500, 374 S.W.2d It appears to be the general rule that the responsibilities of the prime contractor to......
-
Jones v. Comer
...to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. * * *' In the every recent case of Epps v. Remmel, Ark., 373 S.W.2d 141, decided by this court December 16, 1963, we pointed out that if in a hearing on a motion for summary judgment it is shown by un......