Ritter v. Gas-Mart USA, Inc.
| Decision Date | 06 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 120,782,120,782 |
| Parties | Stanley Alan RITTER, Appellant, v. GAS-MART USA, INC, Heartland Restaurants, LLC, and Summit Restaurant Holdings, LLC, Appellees. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Thomas J. Dickerson, of Dickerson Oxton, LLC, of Kansas City, Missouri, for appellant.
Patric S. Linden, Kevin D. Case, and Michael C. Skidgel, of Case Linden P.C., of Kansas City, Missouri, for appellee Gas-Mart USA, Inc.
Janette C. Gaddie, of Law Office of Pamela W. Brown, of Overland Park, for appellees Heartland Restaurants, LLC, and Summit Restaurant Holdings, LLC.
Before Arnold-Burger, C.J., Hill and Gardner, JJ.
Stanley Alan Ritter slipped on black ice in the semi-truck parking area at the Matfield Green Service Station on the Kansas Turnpike (Truck Stop). He filed a negligence action against the operators of the facilities at the Truck Stop, arguing they breached a duty of reasonable care for failing to ensure the removal of the snow and ice from the parking lot. The district court granted summary judgment in the operators' favor, finding they owed no duty to address the snow and ice conditions in the semi-truck parking area because the plain language in their lease agreements with the Kansas Turnpike Authority (KTA) absolved them of responsibility for maintenance of the semi-truck parking area. Ritter appeals, arguing that (1) the district court improperly relied on inadmissible evidence in considering the summary judgment motion and (2) the district court erred because the operators' ownership, possession, or control of the area where Ritter fell was unclear given the ambiguity of the maintenance provisions in the lease agreements. After a careful review of the issues presented, we find that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment, as we must do, there are material issues of fact remaining that preclude summary judgment at this stage of the proceedings. As a result, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
On a winter evening in 2014, Ritter parked his tractor-trailer in the semi-truck parking lot at the Truck Stop. While performing a pretrip inspection on his tractor-trailer the next morning, Ritter slipped on black ice, suffering injuries.
Ritter timely filed a personal injury lawsuit, asserting negligence claims against, among others, the parties to this appeal: Gas-Mart USA, Inc., who operated the gas station; and Heartland Restaurants LLC and Summit Restaurant Holdings LLC, who operated the Hardee's and Dunkin' Donuts food services (Operators). Ritter argued the Operators owed a duty of reasonable care to maintain the parking lots and to ensure they were in a reasonably safe condition for customers and members of the public and they breached their duty by failing to address or remove the ice from the parking lot resulting in Ritter's injuries.
Heartland and Summit (Heartland) filed a joint answer in February 2016, asserting as an affirmative defense that Ritter's petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because Heartland did not have a responsibility to maintain the semi-truck parking area where Ritter fell. Shortly thereafter, Gas-Mart submitted a notice of bankruptcy, ultimately leading to an automatic stay order by the district court that remained in effect for a year.
During the stay, Ritter's counsel contacted Alan Streit, the general counsel for KTA, to request the original version of the lease agreement entered by KTA and Gas-Mart (Gas-Mart Lease). Streit first emailed a color copy of the Gas-Mart Lease that included a black and white copy of the Matfield Green and Towanda Service Area Map (Map). Ritter's counsel emailed back to request "an exact color copy" of the Gas-Mart Lease. The next day, Streit sent Ritter's counsel the same copy of the original Gas-Mart Lease along with a yellow highlighted Map.
The case proceeded toward resolution after the bankruptcy court granted Ritter's motion to lift the stay. Gas-Mart submitted its answer asserting similar defenses as Heartland, specifically Gas-Mart did not owe Ritter a duty of reasonable care because Gas-Mart did not control or have responsibility over the semi-truck parking lot area where Ritter fell.
Later that month, Ritter served a subpoena on KTA requesting "[a]n exact color copy" of the Gas-Mart Lease. Robert Pettersen, a KTA credit manager and authorized custodian of records, submitted the copy and an affidavit as requested.
Heartland moves for summary judgment.
Just a month later and well before the end of discovery, Heartland moved for summary judgment. The motion asserted that Ritter failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because the semi-truck parking area where Ritter fell was not owned, operated, or under Heartland's control. Heartland argued in a memorandum supporting its motion that the lease between them and the KTA (Heartland Lease) did not include the semi-truck parking area in its designated area of responsibility, so they owed no duty of care to Ritter.
Ritter responded to Heartland's motion, generally objecting to the copy of the Heartland Lease included with Heartland's motion for summary judgment and asserting that a genuine factual dispute existed about the contents of the original lease because of the varying versions produced during discovery. Ritter also asserted that the versions of the Heartland Lease and an Operations and Use Agreement (OUA) attached to Heartland's motion were not authenticated, thus making them inadmissible evidence. He also submitted that Pettersen could not authenticate the documents because he lacked personal knowledge and was not a competent witness based on his admitted mishandling of records.
Ritter also disputed that Heartland was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. He argued the Heartland Lease did not effectively release Heartland from its duty of reasonable care as an occupier of the Truck Stop. Last, Ritter noted that even if the semi-truck parking area where his injuries occurred had been KTA's sole responsibility, the Heartland Lease still required Heartland to notify KTA "of the occurrence of any event or condition, the responsibility or maintenance of which rests with the [KTA]."
In its reply, Heartland generally asserted that none of Ritter's factual claims were relevant or material because he had received a copy of the Heartland Lease in August 2016 which contained the map attachment showing Heartland had no responsibility for the semi-truck parking area. Finally, Heartland continued to assert it was entitled to summary judgment.
Ritter filed a surreply asserting that Heartland's response contained factual inaccuracies. Ritter claimed that the communications with KTA counsel during the bankruptcy stay did not involve the Heartland Lease at all because those communications were only about the Gas-Mart Lease. Ritter repeated his objections to the authenticity of the copy of the Heartland Lease referenced in Heartland's motion for summary judgment, asserting there remained a factual dispute about which document constituted the original Heartland Lease from 2013. Ritter continued his challenge over whether Pettersen's affidavit was proper since Pettersen was not a corporate representative for KTA. Finally, Ritter reiterated his arguments that the Heartland Lease imposed a duty upon Heartland, including "the duty to notify the KTA of conditions, the maintenance or responsibility for which lie with the KTA."
Gas-Mart moves for summary judgment.
In August 2018, before the district court ruled on Heartland's motion, Gas-Mart filed its own motion for summary judgment, asserting it owed no duty to Ritter because the area where he fell was not on premises leased by Gas-Mart. In a memorandum supporting its motion, Gas-Mart asserted essentially the same uncontroverted facts related to Ritter's fall in the semi-truck parking area at the Truck Stop as in Heartland's motion for summary judgment.
Likewise, Gas-Mart argued it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Ritter's negligence claim because the Gas-Mart Lease did not grant Gas-Mart possession or control of the semi-truck parking stalls where Ritter fell. As a result, Gas-Mart argued it owed no duty of care to Ritter. Gas-Mart attached several exhibits to its memorandum to support its motion for summary judgment but mainly relied on three exhibits:
Ritter objected on the basis that the version of the Gas-Mart Lease relied on in Gas-Mart's motion for summary judgment was not a true and accurate copy of the Lease, and he asserted that Gas-Mart's Exhibit 5 was inadmissible under the best-evidence rule. Ritter also generally objected to the copy of the Gas-Mart Lease as included in Exhibit 5,...
To continue reading
Request your trial