Kanter v. City and County of Denver, 20199
| Decision Date | 04 November 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 20199,20199 |
| Citation | 153 Colo. 389,386 P.2d 349 |
| Parties | Ruth KANTER, Plaintiff in Error, v. The CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, a Municipal Corporation, and Coe Furniture Co., a Colorado Corporation, d/b/a Coe Interiors, Inc., Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Isaacson, Rosenbaum, Goldberg & Miller, John S. Pfeiffer, for plaintiff in error.
Robert S. Wham, City Atty., Ty R. Williams, Asst. City Atty., for defendant in error, City and County of Denver.
McComb, Zarlengo & Mott, Denver, for defendant in error, Coe.
The parties appear here in the same order as in the trial court. We refer to plaintiff in error as plaintiff or Kanter, and to the defendants in error as defendants or Denver and Coe Furniture.
Kanter commenced this action on November 1, 1960. In her complaint she alleges that at about four o'clock on the afternoon of March 3, 1960, she was walking west on the south side of Colfax Avenue, and as she reached a point in front of Coe Furniture, 1520 East Colfax, she slipped on some ice on the sidewalk in front of said store and fell and suffered severe injuries for which she seeks to be compensated.
In her complaint Kanter alleges that Coe Furniture,
'* * * assumed control, management and maintenance of the sidewalk in front of its business enterprise, and * * * negligently removed snow and ice from the * * * sidewalk * * * and negligently permitted ice to accumulate thereon, * * *.'
'That the said Defendants * * * knew, or should have known, of the dangerous condition of said sidewalk * * * in time to have remedied such condition by the exercise of reasonable care * * *.'
Denver and Coe Furniture in separate answers denied negligence and set up defenses of unavoidable accident, plaintiff's negligence, contributory negligence, and assumption of risk.
Trial was to a jury. At the close of plaintiff's evidence and after she had rested her case, Denver and Coe Furniture each moved for dismissal of plaintiff's case. These motions were granted and separate judgments entered in favor of Denver and Coe Furniture and against Kanter.
From the record it appears that during the three weeks prior to March 3, 1960, the weather had been very cold, with snow falling on numerous occasions and with some thawing periods. Coe Furniture had on each day that snow fell removed the same, and if ice had accumulated had chipped it away. On the day of the fall the walk, about fifteen feet wide, in front of Coe Furniture was generally clear and dry; however, there was an oval-shaped patch of ice about two and one-half feet by one foot, located some three or four feet from the front of Coe Furniture building. The ice was about the same color, 'a little darker' than the sidewalk.
On the day of the fall the temperature was above freezing during part of the morning and until 3:00 P.M., when it dropped to below freezing.
There was no evidence as to when or how the ice had formed on the sidewalk.
The trial court correctly found that no evidence was presented from which it could be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bittle v. Brunetti
...had no duty to the plaintiff, either under the doctrine of negligence per se or under the common law. See Kanter v. City & County of Denver, 153 Colo. 389, 386 P.2d 349 (1963); W.T. Grant Co. v. Casady, 117 Colo. 405, 188 P.2d 881 We first consider the question of whether commercial propert......
-
Woods v. Delgar Ltd., No. 08CA1288.
...leased. The district court granted summary judgment. Relying on Bittle v. Brunetti, 750 P.2d 49 (Colo.1988); Kanter v. City & County of Denver, 153 Colo. 389, 386 P.2d 349 (1963); Brame v. Schroeder, 532 P.2d 763 (Colo.App.1974) (not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(f)); and Key v. Lerner Sh......
-
Smith v. Mill Creek Court, Inc.
...inability to form a basis for jury determination that the condition had existed for any length of time. In Kanter v. City & County of Denver, 153 Colo. 389, 386 P.2d 349 (1963), the plaintiff slipped on an icy sidewalk and sued for her injuries. Evidence showed that there had been numerous ......
-
Easton v. 1738 Partnership, 91CA1096
...affirmative act on the part of defendant that contributed to the injury. Bittle v. Brunetti, supra, (fn. 2); Kanter v. City & County of Denver, 153 Colo. 389, 386 P.2d 349 (1963). If the instruction in question had included the limitation that a property owner who permits water to flow, or ......