Hammond v. San Lo Leyte VFW Post
Decision Date | 02 July 2020 |
Docket Number | No. 118,698,118,698 |
Citation | 466 P.3d 886 |
Parties | Jeffrey Alan HAMMOND, Appellant, v. SAN LO LEYTE VFW POST #7515, Appellee. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Larry G. Michel, of Kennedy, Berkley, Yarnevich & Williamson, Chartered, of Salina, and Klint A. Spiller, of the same firm, were on the brief for appellant.
Michelle R. Stewart, of Hinkle Law Firm LLC, of Overland Park, and Jennifer R. Johnson, of the same firm, were on the brief for appellee.
This personal injury case arises from a bar fight at the San Lo Leyte VFW Post #7515 in Clyde, Kansas, (VFW) between Jeffrey Hammond, plaintiff, and a third party patron of the bar, Travis Blackwood. On appeal, a panel of the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the VFW. In turn, the VFW petitioned this court for review, arguing it owed Hammond no duty at the time he sustained his injuries. For the reasons set forth below, we find that summary judgment was not warranted, affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case to district court for further proceedings.
Given the nature of summary judgment, the facts established in this case are limited. The Court of Appeals panel compiled the following combined uncontroverted facts submitted by both parties in their respective motion for summary judgment and response. The panel's recitation of facts was accepted by both parties upon petition for review.
The VFW argues that summary judgment was proper because any duty it might have owed Hammond ended as soon as Hammond left the VFW-owned premises and it is undisputed by both parties that the injury took place on the public sidewalk just outside the VFW building.
On the other hand, Hammond argues that despite the injury occurring off VFW-owned premises, the VFW's duty to protect Hammond from the assault—and the subsequent breach of that duty—arose while Hammond and Blackwood were both still inside the bar. This argument was accepted by the Court of Appeals panel when it reversed summary judgment, finding that negligence could have arisen when all parties were on the VFW's premises.
In an appeal from the district court's ruling on a summary judgment motion, the appellate court considers the motion de novo. Martin v. Naik , 297 Kan. 241, 246, 300 P.3d 625 (2013). This court applies all the same standards of the district court:
" ‘ " Warner v. Stover , 283 Kan. 453, 455-56, 153 P.3d 1245 (2007).
See Osterhaus v. Toth , 291 Kan. 759, 768, 249 P.3d 888 (2011).
For purposes of this appeal, we resolve all facts and inferences which may reasonably be drawn from the evidence in Hammond's favor. We also recognize that summary judgment should be granted with caution in negligence cases. Apodaca v. Willmore , 306 Kan. 103, 106, 392 P.3d 529 (2017) ; Fettke v. City of Wichita , 264 Kan. 629, 632, 957 P.2d 409 (1998). Ultimately, whether a duty exists is a question of law over which this court's review is unlimited. Sall v. T's, Inc. , 281 Kan. 1355, 1360, 136 P.3d 471 (2006). Whether a duty has been breached is a question of fact. South v. McCarter , 280 Kan. 85, 94, 119 P.3d 1 (2005).
The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344 (1965), defines the scope of liability of owner/operators of commercial enterprise:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jefferies v. United Rotary Brush Corp.
...as to the conclusions drawn from the evidence, summary judgment must be denied.’ [Citations omitted.]" Hammond v. San Lo Leyte VFW Post #7515 , 311 Kan. 723, 727, 466 P.3d 886 (2020). In a negligence action, summary judgment is proper if the only question presented is a question of law. Man......
-
Martinez v. Hobbs Mech.
... ... for summary judgment, appellate review of summary judgment is ... de novo. Hammond v. San Lo Leyte VFW Post #7515, 311 ... Kan. 723, 727, 466 P.3d 886 (2020) ... ...