Letts v. Iwig, 20443
| Decision Date | 12 August 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 20443,20443 |
| Citation | 384 P.2d 726,153 Colo. 20 |
| Parties | Jeanette S. LETTS, Plaintiff in Error, v. Evelyn IWIG, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Yegge, Hall & Shulenburg, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Bernard D. Morley, Denver, for defendant in error.
We refer to the parties as they appeared in the trial court where plaintiff in error was defendant and defendant in error was plaintiff.
The action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff when she fell on ice at the gate opening from a private driveway into the back yard of premises occupied by defendant. The case was tried to a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $20,000.00 upon which judgment was entered.
It was alleged in the complaint filed by plaintiff that the injuries complained of by her were, '* * * a result of the negligence and carelessness of the defendant in failing to keep the premises in a proper state of repair and said negligence and carelessness of the defendant was the direct and proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries.'
Defendant filed her answer in which she denied that plaintiff was injured as alleged, and denied any negligence on her part. The answer contained affirmative defenses, contributory negligence, assumption of risk and that any injuries sustained by plaintiff were brought about by an act of God.
By a pre-trial conference order the issues to be tried were determined as follows:
'(a) Was the defendant guilty of negligence in the maintenance of her premises on January 31, 1961?
'(b) Did the defendant know or reasonably should have known of the icy condition in the area of the back fence gate located at the rear of her premises?
'(c) Did the defendant take reasonable care to discover the actual condition of premises and either make them safe or warn the plaintiff of the dangerous condition?
'(d) Was the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence on January 31, 1961?
'(e) Did the plaintiff know of the risk of harm and injury involved in walking in the area of the defendant's back fence gate on her way to defendant's residence and did she assume said risk of harm and injury?'
At the close of the evidence offered by plaintiff, counsel for defendant moved for dismissal of the action on the ground that there was no evidence sufficient to warrant consideration by the jury of the question of negligence on the part of defendant. This motion was denied. Following return of the verdict a motion for new trial, or in the alternative for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, was filed by counsel for defendant. The grounds upon which the motion was based were that, as a matter of law, there was no competent evidence establishing negligence on the part of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kiefer Concrete, Inc. v. Hoffman
...360 P.2d 964 (1961). Finally, the plaintiff has the burden of proving negligence by a preponderance of the evidence. See Letts v. Iwig, 153 Colo. 20, 384 P.2d 726 (1963) (plaintiff's burden not sustained by mere conjecture); Yeager v. Lathrop, 28 Colo.App. 44, 470 P.2d 609 (1970). After spe......
-
Martin K. Eby Construction Co. v. Neely, 7796.
...by a preponderance of the evidence, and such burden is not sustained by evidence that is surmise, speculation or conjecture. Letts v. Iwig, (Colo.1963), 384 P.2d 726; Perry Lumber Co. v. Ruybal, 133 Colo. 502, 297 P.2d 531; Gordon v. Clotsworthy, 127 Colo. 377, 257 P.2d 410, 49 A.L.R.2d 314......