Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Musfelt
| Decision Date | 16 February 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 38549,38549 |
| Citation | 349 P.2d 756 |
| Parties | SAFEWAY STORES, INCORPORATED, a Maryland corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. Lena MUSFELT, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where a retail grocery store had a customers' parking space, or spaces, on one side of its building adjacent to the street and abutting the sidewalk, where persons who visited the store could without charge or directions from the owner of the store park their automobiles, and such customers drove across the sidewalk into the parking spaces, or lot, and in leaving backed their cars out over the sidewalk into the street, such store owner was required to use only ordinary care in the maintenance and operation of the property to prevent injury to users of the sidewalk and was not an insurer of the safe condition of the premises, or required to provide against the acts of third persons.
2. It was reversible error to overrule defendant's motion for a directed verdict where the admitted facts were that plaintiff, after making purchases, walked to a point on the sidewalk opposite the store's parking space, at which time an unidentified person negligently backed his car out of the parking space across the sidewalk and struck plaintiff, causing injuries for which she obtained judgment against store owner. Held: store owner was not responsible for negligence of third party; and, moreover, negligence of third party was not imputable to store owner.
Appeal from the District Court of Beckham County; W. P. Keen, Judge.
Action for damages for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed with directions.
Monnet, Hayes, Bullis, Grubb & Thompson, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
Carl A. Rizley, Sayre, Donald T. Royse, Elk City, for defendant in error.
Lena Musfelt sued Safeway Stores, Inc., a Maryland corporation, for damages for personal injuries. A jury trial resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of Lena Musfelt. Safeway appeals.
The defendant complains of the trial court's action in overruling its demurrer to the plaintiff's petition, its demurrer to plaintiff's evidence, its motion for a directed verdict, and its motion for a new trial.
The salient facts, alleged and admitted, are that Safeway was the owner of a retail grocery store in Elk City, Oklahoma; that there was a customer parking space on the north side of the store building where persons who visited the store, without charge or directions from the store owner could park their automobiles. The parking space had painted lines indicating parking spaces. The parking spaces were between the building and the sidewalk. Customers drove across the sidewalk into the parking spaces, and in leaving backed their cars out over the sidewalk into the street, or highway.
On the date of the alleged injury plaintiff went to the Safeway store and purchased some groceries. After making the purchases, she left the store and walked to a point on the sidewalk opposite the north edge of the store building and parking space. A car, whose owner and driver was unknown to plaintiff, was negligently backed out of the parking space across the sidewalk and struck her, causing the injuries for which she obtained the verdict and judgment for damages, and about which Safeway complains.
Thus it is seen that some unknown person using Safeway's parking space, through the negligent operation of his car, injured the plaintiff.
Safeway, as the owner of the land abutting the sidewalk, of course, has a duty to pedestrians using the sidewalk. In the same way, Safeway would have had a duty to persons parked in the parking space who were going from the store to their parked cars, since such customers would have been invitees. The fact that the sidewalk abuts Safeway's property is only significant in establishing Safeway's duty. However, in this connection, plaintiff contends that the construction of the parking space was done in a negligent manner so that the negligent construction concurred with the negligence of the unknown third party (the driver of the automobile) in causing her injury.
In support of that contention...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marshall v. Burger King Corp.
...1365, quoting Zimmermann v. Netemeyer, 122 Ill.App.3d 1042 1054, 78 Ill.Dec. 383, 462 N.E.2d 502 (1984), quoting Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Musfelt, 349 P.2d 756, 758 (Okla.1960). This court concluded that, "[b]ecause the condition on defendant's land posed no danger to plaintiff absent the in......
-
Boudreaux v. Sonic Industries, Inc.
...was premised on causation and is inapposite. The decisions in Booth v. Warehouse Market, 286 P.2d 721 (Okla.1955) and Safeway Stores v. Musfelt, 349 P.2d 756 (Okla.1960) also dealt with causation, not duty. Other Oklahoma decisions are more analogous to this case. In Apache Gas Co. v. Thomp......
-
Zimmermann v. Netemeyer
...the drivers of the vehicles involved. Defendant has cited an Oklahoma case that is close on its facts to this one, Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Musfelt (1960 Okl.), 349 P.2d 756. The Oklahoma court said it very "It is a matter of common knowledge that most residences and many business establishm......
-
Chouinard v. NH SPEEDWAY
...Flanigan, 489 N.E.2d 1216 (Ind.App. 1 Dist.1986); Warrington v. Bird, 204 N.J.Super. 611, 499 A.2d 1026 (1985); and Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Musfelt, 349 P.2d 756 (Okla.1960). Two of these cases involve fact patterns strikingly similar to the case at bar thus warranting a detailed review of ......