Randall v. Nasbarg, 22914
| Decision Date | 24 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 22914,22914 |
| Parties | Walter Richard RANDALL, Plaintiff in Error, v. Louis W. NASBARG and Bert Eppstein, doing business as United Furniture, Defendants in Error. . II |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Charles M. McClure, III, and Andrew Hitchcock, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Yegge, Hall, Treece & Evans, Raymond J. Connell, Denver, for defendants in error.
This case was originally filed in the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado, and was subsequently transferred to the Court of Appeals under authority vested in the Supreme Court.
The parties in this action appear here in the same order as in the trial court and will be referred to as plaintiff and defendants.
Plaintiff brought this action against defendants to recover damages for personal injuries suffered in a fall on a ramp in defendants' place of business. At the conclusion of plaintiff's case, the trial court granted defendants' motion for a directed verdict.
Plaintiff contends here that his evidence established a prima facie case of negligence and the trial court erred in refusing to submit the issues to the jury and in ruling as a matter of law that plaintiff failed to establish a case of negligence or proximate cause against the defendants.
The plaintiff was a business invitee at defendants' place of business when he was injured. In support of his case, he presented evidence that defendants constructed and maintained a ramp on the premises which was steeper than that permitted by the Building Code of the City and County of Denver, and that the ramp had a brushed surface which was worn smooth in spots. The plaintiff testified that while descending this ramp he fell when he 'hit a slippery spot and his feet went out from under him.'
This evidence was disputed. One of the defendants, who was called as an adverse witness, testified that immediately after plaintiff fell he said that he fell because he was wearing leather heels.
Generally, the issues of negligence and proximate cause are issues for the trier of facts. Only in the clearest of cases where the evidence is undisputed and reasonable minds could reach but one conclusion are the questions of negligence and proximate cause to be taken from the jury and determined as a matter of law by the court. Hilzer v. MacDonald, Colo., 454 P.2d 928.
In deciding a motion for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff's case, the only consideration for the court is whether the plaintiff's evidence, including every legitimate inference which may be drawn from it and disregarding all conflicting inferences, is sufficiently material and substantial to justify a finding of negligence. Gossard v. Watson, 122 Colo. 271, 221 P.2d 353.
The evidence here, if considered most favorably to the plaintiff, established a prima facie case. The testimony of the defendant that plaintiff said he fell because he was wearing leather heels, and all other evidence and inferences favorable to the defendants should have been disregarded in ruling on the motion for a directed verdict.
The defendants contend that there was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Linker v. Linker, 23540
-
Polster v. Griff's of America, Inc.
...Again, we do not agree. It is well established that proximate cause can be established by circumstantial evidence. Randall v. Nasbarg, 28 Colo.App. 147, 470 P.2d 893. Here, there was evidence showing that there was an incline leading away from the door; that it was snowy and wet in the area......
-
Hildyard v. Western Fasteners, Inc.
...the party against whom the motion for directed verdict is requested. See Reidesel v. Blank, 158 Colo. 340, 407 P.2d 30; Randall v. Nasbarg, 28 Colo.App. 147, 470 P.2d 893. IV Mitigation of Since this case must be retried, we discuss certain other allegations of error raised by defendants. A......
-
Schafer v. National Tea Co.
...the Primary cause of the accident was properly submitted to the jury, as trier of fact. Jacobson v. Dahlberg, Supra; Randall v. Nasbarg, 28 Colo. App. 147, 470 P.2d 893. Similarly, whether Stuber's distraction was justifiable under these circumstances, or whether his duty to exercise reason......