Sill v. Lewis, 18368
| Citation | 344 P.2d 972,140 Colo. 436 |
| Decision Date | 13 October 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 18368,18368 |
| Parties | Hugo F. SILL, doing business as Hugo Sill Motors, Plaintiff in Error, v. Melba G. LEWIS, as guardian of Charles Albert Lewis, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Wormwood, O'Dell & Wolvington, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Hornbein & Hornbein, Roy O. Goldin, Denver, for defendant in error.
The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court where defendant in error was plaintiff and plaintiff in error was defendant.
The cause is before this court on writ of error to review a judgment entered on the verdict of a jury awarding damages to the plaintiff resulting from a fall upon an icy sidewalk adjacent to premises of the defendant.
Plaintiff presented the case to the trial court, as well as here, upon the theory that the icy condition of the sidewalk was caused by the defendant who negligently maintained his premises so as to create a hazardous condition upon a public sidewalk. Plaintiff contended, and offered evidence to prove, that defendant's premises were constructed and maintained so as to discharge water upon the walk in violation of a city ordinance. The icy condition of the walk was attributed by plaintiff to freezing of this water, after which the ice was covered by a skiff of snow.
As grounds for reversal it is argued by counsel for defendant that expert testimony was improperly admitted; that the trial court should have directed a verdict for the defendant; and that the court erred in refusing to submit to the jury the question of whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.
No new or unusual situation is presented by the record which requires us to set forth in detail the full circumstances surrounding the accident.
There are conflicts in the evidence in some particulars and the jury resolved those conflicts in favor of the plaintiff. The objection going to the expert testimony goes to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility. There was competent evidence to support the verdict and the judgment entered thereon. We find no evidence in the record which warranted the submission to the jury of an instruction upon the question of contributory negligence.
The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bittle v. Brunetti
...with boulders as the petitioner suggests"). The no duty rule has been limited to naturally occurring snow and ice. See Sill v. Lewis, 140 Colo. 436, 344 P.2d 972 (1959) (defendant liable for injuries caused by ice created when he discharged water onto sidewalk). The plaintiff in this case u......
-
Henderson v. Smallcomb
...v. I.C. Helmly Furniture Company, 141 So.2d 302 (1962) (discharge of water from abutting property owner's downspout); Sill v. Lewis, 140 Colo. 436, 344 P.2d 972 (1959) (defendant liable for injuries caused by ice when he discharged water onto sidewalk); and Hippodrome Amusement Co. v. Cariu......
-
Lopez v. Trujillo
...18, 350 P.3d at 868 (quoting Pierson, 48 P.3d at 1220 ). Plaintiffs contend that defendant, like the defendant in Sill v. Lewis, 140 Colo. 436, 437, 344 P.2d 972, 972 (1959), affirmatively acted when he unleashed "two large vicious[ ] pit bulls upon unsuspecting passerbys [sic]" and created......
-
Woods v. Delgar Ltd., No. 08CA1288.
...with the defendants' knowledge, cars driving on the gravel caused some of it to be thrown onto the sidewalk. Citing Sill v. Lewis, 140 Colo. 436, 344 P.2d 972 (1959), the supreme court concluded that, to the extent that the gravel on the sidewalk constituted a hazardous condition and caused......