Robinson v. Belmont-Buckingham Holding Co., 12933.
| Citation | 31 P.2d 918,94 Colo. 534 |
| Decision Date | 26 March 1934 |
| Docket Number | 12933. |
| Parties | ROBINSON v. BELMONT-BUCKINGHAM HOLDING CO. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
In Department.
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; E. V. Holland Judge.
Action by Dagmar E. Robinson against the Belmont-Buckingham Holding Company. To review a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff brings error.
Reversed and remanded, with instructions.
Gillette & Clark and Frederick Sass, all of Denver for plaintiff in error.
L. Ward Bannister and Samuel M. January, both of Denver, for defendant in error.
The parties are aligned as at the trial. Miss Robinson will be referred to as plaintiff and Belmont-Buckingham Holding Company (a corporation) as defendant, or the company. Plaintiff brought an action against the company to recover for personal injuries sustained by her as the result of falling on a cement walk in front of the Belmont Apartments in Denver, owned by the company. Plaintiff prosecutes error to review a judgment of nonsuit.
The apartments and surrounding grounds occupy a city block, bounded by Sherman street on the west, Grant street on the east, 10th avenue on the south, and 11th avenue on the north. Opposite exits are provided, one facing Grant street and the other Sherman street. Plaintiff was a tenant of the building, occupying one of the apartments. She alleges, inter alia, that about 8 o'clock in the morning on a day in the month of January, she left the building on the Grant street side, with the purpose of going to her place of employment in a downtown store; that snow was falling and had fallen on previous days, followed by thaws during the days and freezing during the nights, which made the sidewalks and streets generally slippery and dangerous. By reason of this condition, she avers, she had called a taxicab to take her to her place of business; that she left the building and proceeded on foot with due care and caution, along a cement walk over the grounds of the company.
Plaintiff further alleges that the above walk extends a distance of about 92 feet from the exit of the building to the public cement sidewalk on Grant street; that the taxicab was waiting for her at the street curb immediately in front of the private sidewalk; that upon her arrival at or about the junction of the private sidewalk with that on the public street, she suddenly slipped and fell upon a sheet or body of ice which had formed on the sidewalk, and which rendered the place slippery and dangerous to pedestrians. The complaint also contains an allegation that the presence of such danger was not known to plaintiff and could not have been seen by her by reason of the place being covered with snow; also that her fall was caused solely and proximately by the carelessness and negligence of defendant, in that it knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care and diligence it would have known of the slippery and dangerous condition of the sidewalk and of the accumulation of ice thereon at the place where plaintiff fell; that defendant failed to make any effort to remove the ice, or to scatter ashes, sand, or other nonskid material thereon, or to erect any danger signal thereon, or to in any manner make the said sidewalks reasonably safe for pedestrians entering or leaving the apartment building. Plaintiff further alleges in detail her personal injuries of a serious and permanent nature sustained as a result of her fall, and in substance that she thereby became so incapacitated as to cause her to lose a lucrative position in a Denver department store. The complaint concludes with a prayer for damages. Defendant's answer contains general and specific denials and alleges contributory negligence.
Mont Gwinup, president, resident manager, and director of the company, who lives in an apartment on the premises, was called for cross-examination under the statute. He testified that his duties were to keep the place filled up, keep it in the best possible condition, and to see that it was so kept; that he personally went over the walks and inspected them when it was snowing and after a snow; that he was very careful and never failed as he recalls; that he had no independent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buchholz v. Union Pac. R. Co.
...to establish the case that a nonsuit may be properly ordered or a verdict directed' by the trial court. Robinson v. Belmont-Buckingham Holding Co., 94 Colo. 534, 31 P.2d 918; Williams v. Sleepy Hollow Min. Co., 37 Colo. 62, 86 P. 337, 7 L.R.A., N.S., 1170, 11 Ann.Cas. At other times courts ......
-
Durkin v. Lewitz
...Conn. 383, 128 A. 705, 139 A.L.R. 287; United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. Paine, 1 Cir., 1928, 26 F.2d 594; Robinson v. Belmont-Buckington Holding Co., 1934, 94 Colo. 534, 31 P.2d 918; Massor v. Yates, 1931, 137 Or. 569, 3 P.2d 784; Thompson v. Resnik, 1932, 85 N.H. 413, 159 A. 355. See also Go......
-
Lakeview Associates, Ltd. v. Maes
...and did not in general confine the use of the parking lot to tenants who owned or parked cars. See Robinson v. Belmont-Buckingham Holding Co., 94 Colo. 534, 538, 31 P.2d 918, 920 (1934) (where apartment building contained two exits, tenant was free to use either). Under the circumstances of......
-
Thomas v. Panco Mgmt. of Maryland, LLC
...tenant assumed the risk of his or her injuries as a matter of law, merely by exercising this right. See Robinson v. Belmont–Buckingham Holding Co., 94 Colo. 534, 31 P.2d 918, 920 (1934) (holding that, even if a tenant had knowledge of the patches of ice on the common approach to her apartme......
-
Rule 41 DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS.
...246, 254 P. 1000 (1927); Arps v. City & County of Denver, 82 Colo. 189, 257 P. 1094 (1927); Robinson v. Belmont-Buckingham Holding Co., 94 Colo. 534, 31 P.2d 918 (1934); Lesser v. Porter, 94 Colo. 348, 30 P.2d 318 (1934). Previously, such a motion admitted the truth of the evidence produced......