Gunlock v. New Frontier Hotel Corp., 4456

Docket NºNo. 4456
Citation370 P.2d 682, 78 Nev. 182
Case DateApril 05, 1962
CourtSupreme Court of Nevada

Page 682

370 P.2d 682
78 Nev. 182
Mary GUNLOCK and A. E. Gunlock, Appellants,
The NEW FRONTIER HOTEL CORP., a Nevada corporation,
bankrupt, and Leonard R. Fayle as Trustee of the
said New Frontier Hotel Corp., a
bankrupt, Respondents.
No. 4456.
Supreme Court of Nevada.
April 5, 1962.

Page 683

Hawkins & Cannon, Las Vegas, for appellants.

Clarence Sundean, Las Vegas, for respondents.

[78 Nev. 183] McNAMEE, Justice.

This is an action for personal injury resulting from a fall in a hotel lobby.

While the appellants were paying guests at the New Frontier Hotel, they entered the front door of the dimly lit lobby of the hotel about 10:00 P.M. and walked through the lobby some 30 feet to where an artist was seated painting a picture. Nearby and in front of a large plate-glass window was a planter about two feet wide, extending 30 feet from the front door to where the artist was painting. The planter was in a box, the border of which arose three or four inches above the level of the floor, and was concealed by the artificial foliage which was a foot and a half or two feet high. While she was standing and watching the artist, Mrs. Gunlock started to turn around. A heel of her high-heel shoes caught on the planter box, she fell backward into the planter, and was injured by hitting her head on the plateglass window. The window did not break.

The case was tried by the court without a jury. After the presentation of appellants' evidence, the court granted respondents' motion for an involuntary dismissal made pursuant to Rule 41(b) NRCP. Appeal is from said judgment.

Appellants concede that Mrs. Gunlock fell because she failed to see the planter, and it is apparent that the reason she did not see the planter was because she was moving backwards in the act of turning around.

The only matters for consideration are whether any evidence was presented to show negligence on the part of respondents and, if so, whether Mrs. Gunlock was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.

A motion for an involuntary dismissal admits the truth of a plaintiff's evidence and all inferences that [78 Nev. 184] reasonably can be drawn therefrom, and the evidence

Page 684

must be interpreted in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Gordon v. Cal-Neva Lodge, Inc., 71 Nev. 336, 291 P.2d 1054; Corn v. French, 71 Nev. 280, 289 P.2d 173.

Appellants maintain that negligence could be inferred from (1) the dimly lit lobby, and (2) the maintenance of the planter box in a section of the lobby where guests are apt to be. We conclude that on both of these issues the evidence was as a matter of law...

To continue reading

Request your trial
62 cases
  • McGarry v. United States, Civ. No. LV-1504
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Nevada
    • October 30, 1973
    ...ordinary care does not require a warning from the owner because obviousness serves the same purpose. Gunlock v. New Frontier Hotel, 78 Nev. 182, 370 P.2d 682 (1962), and Worth v. Read, 79 Nev. 351, 384 P. 2d 1017. In a later Nevada case, the Nevada Supreme Court adopted section 343A of the ......
  • McCoy v. Colonial Baking Co., Inc., s. 07-CA-58766
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • November 28, 1990
    ...Tiberti Constr. Co., 99 Nev. 494, 664 P.2d 963 (1983) (Loss of consortium is a "derivative" claim.); Gunlock v. New Frontier Hotel Corp., 78 Nev. 182, 370 P.2d 682, 684 n. 1 (1962) ("Mr. Gunlock's claim for ... loss of consortium ... was dependent upon the success of his wife's [personal in......
  • Cook v. Sunrise Hospital & Medical Center, 47220.
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court of Nevada
    • October 30, 2008
    ...SAITTA, JJ. --------------- Notes: 1. By the time of trial, Dr. Ameriks had settled with appellants and is not a party to this appeal. 2. 78 Nev. 182, 185, 370 P.2d 682, 684 3. See, e.g., Johnson v. Egtedar, 112 Nev. 428, 435, 915 P.2d 271, 275, (1996) (concluding that NRCP 51's requirement......
  • Foster v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 55284.
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court of Nevada
    • December 27, 2012
    ...hazard, and that Foster's testimony demonstrated his comprehension of the dangerous condition. Citing Gunlock v. New Frontier Hotel, 78 Nev. 182, 185, 370 P.2d 682, 684 (1962), the district court concluded that Costco did not breach its duty of care because under the circumstances, it had n......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT