Sullins v. Mills
| Citation | 395 P.2d 787 |
| Decision Date | 28 July 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 40411,40411 |
| Parties | W. C. (Bill) SULLINS, Plaintiff in Error, v. Warren MILLS, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The owner and operator of a motel is not an insurer of the safety of a customer who uses his premises, but only owes the duty to such customer, as a business invitee, to exercise reasonable care to keep the premises in reasonably safe and suitable condition so that when his customer uses the premises, such customer would not be necessarily or unreasonably exposed to danger.
2. Unless it is established that a customer of a motel owner, who is a business invitee, sustains an injury as a result of the owner's negligence, and such negligence is the proximate cuase of the injury, or because of a condition of which the owner had actual or constructive notice, there can be no recovery.
Appeal from the District Court of Garvin County; Elvin J. Brown, Judge.
W. C. (Bill) Sullins, plaintiff in error, sought damages against defendant in error, for injuries sustained upon the business premises owned and operated by defendant in error. The trial court sustained the motion for a directed verdict of defendant in error. Plaintiff in error appeals from the order overruling his motion for new trial. Judgment affirmed.
Milton Keen, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
Pierce, Mock, Duncan, Couch & Hendrickson, Donald F. Gust, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error, W. C. (Bill) Sullins, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, brought an action against Warren Mills to recover damages for injuries sustained when he slipped on an icy area at a motel owned and operated by the defendant. After both parties had rested, the trial court sustained defendant's motion for a directed verdict. Plaintiff appeals from the order overruling his motion for a new trial.
Plaintiff premised his cause of action upon the allegations that defendant was negligent in that he (1) failed to provide and maintain a safe place for his customers to walk, (2) failed to warn plaintiff of the dangerous icy condition there existing, and (3) failed to warn plaintiff that he had chopped a hole in the ice.
Defendant's motel is in Pauls Valley, Oklahoma. Plaintiff and his companion, a Mr. Burlingame, arrived at the motel about 7:30 P.M. They were assigned a room and paid for it. They parked their vehicle in the place designated for the room they were assigned, took their luggage and business papers into the room, unpacked, and got ready to go eat. About 8:00 P.M. they left their room and started to walk across the courtyard of the motel to a cafe located nearby. Mr. Burlingame preceded plaintiff and when plaintiff had gone but a short distance past the walk-way in front of their room, he slipped on an icy area, fell and broke his right leg at the ankle.
Plaintiff testified that after he arrived at the motel and first went to his room he was aware of the icy conditions; that when he left his room he just didn't pay any attention to the ice; that he knew it was there and just started to walk across it just as a normal or average man would; and that when he slipped on the ice, his heel caught in a small hole in the ice and he fell.
Plaintiff specifically alleged in his petition that the injury was proximately caused by the negligence of the defendant in leaving a hole in the ice in front of his room which defendant had chopped out and left in the ice earlier in the day.
The evidence discloses the accident happened the night of December 13th. On December 12th, the courtyard had been covered with ice and snow and defendant had used his tractor to clear it. Most of the ice and snow was cleared except some areas located close to the motel rooms which had been protected from the sun. On December 13th, defendant put salt on the remaining icy areas and in the late afternoon and early evening cleared the slush from the melting ice.
Defendant testified that he cleared all the ice; that he did not chop any holes in any ice and there were no holes when he completed his work; that when he was finished, the water left from the melting ice and snow began to refreeze and he sprinkled this with salt.
Plaintiff contends that in view of the fact that the trial court directed a verdict in favor of defendant, the only issue is whether the evidence as to defendant's negligence was sufficient to present a question of fact for the jury to determine.
Defendant contends the true question presented is whether there was any competent evidence tending to establish primary negligence of defendant which was the proximate cause of the accident.
In Towery v. Guffey, Okl., 358 P.2d 812, we held:
'This court has consistently followed the rule that in passing upon a motion for directed verdict, the trial court must consider as true all the evidence favorable to the party against whom the motion is directed, together with all inferences that may be reasonably drawn therefrom, and disregard all conflicting evidence favorable to the movant, and the matter should then be left to the jury if there is any competent evidence tending to show a right to recover under any view of the evidence so considered.'
Although the above rule of law is applicable in the instant proceeding, in applying such rule we must be cognizant of other rules this Court has consistently followed.
Defendant was not an insurer of the safety of plaintiff who slipped on the ice in defendant's courtyard, but only owed him the duty, as a business invitee, to exercise reasonable care to keep the premises in reasonably safe and suitable condition so that when plaintiff used the premises, he would not be necessarily or unreasonably exposed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Copeland v. Lodge Enterprises, Inc.
...to "keep all common areas of his building, grounds, facilities and appurtenances in a clean, safe and sanitary condition."). 21. Sullins v. Mills, 1964 OK 187, ¶ 12, 395 P.2d 787, 789. 22. Buck, supra, note 19 at ¶ 13, at 364; Sullins v. Mills, 1964 OK 187, ¶ 12, 395 P.2d 787, 789. 23. Brow......
-
Brown v. Alliance Real Estate Group
...no actionable negligence. Beatty v. Dixon, Okl., 408 P.2d 339; Herndon v. Paschal, Okl., 410 P.2d 549; Sullins v. Mills, supra, [Okl., 395 P.2d 787 (1964) ] Pruitt v. Timme, Okl., 349 P.2d Buck, 1967 OK 81, pp 21, 22, 431 P.2d at 365. ¶4 Apparently, the district court regarded the rule of B......
-
Stonsifer v. Courtney's Furniture Company, Inc.
...violated, there can be no actionable negligence. Beatty v. Dixon, Okl., 408 P.2d 339; Herndon v. Paschal, Okl., 410 P.2d 549; Sullins v. Mills, 395 P.2d 787 supra; Pruitt v. Timme, Okl., 349 P. 2d It is clear from the evidence that the wife knew or should have known of the general weather c......
-
Buck v. Del City Apartments, Inc.
...to the defective condition of the premises is, however, governed in Oklahoma by the rule of common law. As this court held in Sullins v. Mills, Okl., 395 P.2d 787, the owner or operator of a motel is not an insurer of the safety of a customer who uses the premises, but only owes the duty to......