Wells v. Howard
| Decision Date | 22 April 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 22056,22056 |
| Parties | Ida M. WELLS, Executrix of the Last Will and Testament of and of the Estate of William L. Wells, Deceased, Plaintiff in Error, v. W. S. HOWARD and Fay E. Howard, now known as Fay E. Jett, as Individuals, and W. S. Howard and Fay E. Howard, now known as Fay E. Jett, doing business as El Rancho Motel, also known as El Rancho Craig Motel, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Fred A. Videon, Craig, for plaintiff in error.
Weller, Friedrich & Hickisch, William H. Hazlitt, Denver, for defendants in error.
William L. Wells brought an action for damages for personal injuries sustained by him as result of a fall in a combination bathtub-shower in the El Rancho Motel in Craig, Colorado, owned and operated by defendants in error, W. S. Howard and Fay E. Howard.
Trial was to a jury. During the interim since the trial, Mr. Wells died from causes independent of the injuries described above.
The alleged negligence consisted of: failure to furnish a rubber mat, failure to furnish handholds for protection, failure to line the bottom of the bathtub with any substance to prevent sudden slipping, failure to furnish a shower stall around the bathtub reasonably safe for plaintiff's safety, and failure to furnish any warning as to the lack of safety devices.
The following facts are not in dispute. Wells entered the shower and closed the aluminum-encased glass sliding door. The shower head was about ordinary height on the wall and the faucets for mixing the water for the shower were at tub faucet level. After showering, Wells turned around with his back to the shower to turn the water off. While in the process of doing so, his feet slipped out from under him; and in trying to catch himself, his side hit and shattered the glass sliding door causing the injuries of which he complained.
The evidence presented by Wells showed failure to furnish a rubber mat, failure to line the bottom of the tub as alleged, and failure to furnish any warning as to the lack of safety devices. Facts concerning the presence or absence of handholds are disputed. The glass shower stall around the tub was not shatterproof or wire-enmeshed.
At the conclusion of the evidence and before submission of the case to the jury, the trial court granted defendants' motion for judgment of dismissal on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing that defendants were negligent. The sole issue for our determination on this writ of error is whether the trial court erred in granting the motion for judgment of dismissal against the plaintiff. We have scrutinized the evidence from the record before us and conclude that the totality of all the evidence does not exclude the probability that fair-minded and intelligent men could draw different inferences and conclusions as to whether negligence is shown. The posture of this evidence therefore requires determination by the fact finder. Consequently, the trial court erred in taking this case from the jury.
Recently, we reiterated the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bidar v. AMFAC, Inc.
...in a reasonably safe condition for the use of the guest. Id. at 976-79; see Annot., 93 A.L.R.3d 253 (1979); see also Wells v. Howard, 165 Colo. 471, 439 P.2d 997 (1968); Trust v. Washington Sheraton Corp., 252 A.2d 21 (D.C.1969); Ruby v. William Morris, Inc., 66 So.2d 218 (Fla.1953); Worth ......
-
Wotzka v. Minndakota Ltd.
...a hotel was under no duty to warn of the open and obvious danger created by a wet and soapy shower floor). But see Wells v. Howard, 165 Colo. 471, 439 P.2d 997, 998 (1968) (holding that a question of fact existed as to whether the hotel was negligent for failing to furnish the shower with n......
-
Clarke v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., Civil Action No. 2008-086
...Stry v. State 479 N.Y.S.2d 258 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984) (factual dispute as to whether warnings and notice had been given); Wells v. Howard, 439 P.2d 997 (Colo. 1968) (facts regarding safety bars and handholds disputed); Fritts v. Collins, 144 So. 2d 850, 851 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1962) (foreig......
-
Downen v. Sinclair Oil Corp., 94-98
...owed had been breached which precluded summary judgment since a factfinder must resolve these issues. They cited to Wells v. Howard, 165 Colo. 471, 439 P.2d 997 (1968) for the proposition that these issues must be submitted to a jury. Now, on appeal and in response to findings in the distri......