White v. Pines Enterprises, Inc., 84CA0467
| Decision Date | 30 October 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 84CA0467,84CA0467 |
| Citation | 728 P.2d 759 |
| Parties | Thomas S. WHITE and Dianne L. White, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PINES ENTERPRISES, INC., a Colorado corporation, Defendant-Appellee. . III |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Williams, Trine, Greenstein & Griffith, P.C., J. Conard Metcalf, Boulder, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Hall & Evans, Alan Epstein, Kevin O'Brien, Denver, for defendant-appellee.
In this slip and fall case, plaintiffs, Thomas and Diane L. White, appeal a judgment of dismissal entered pursuant to a jury verdict that defendant, Pines Enterprises, Inc., had not been negligent. Plaintiffs claim the court committed prejudicial error by giving two instructions and refusing to give another. We reverse.
American Continental Corporation, doing business as Medema Homes (the owner), was the owner and builder of a housing development, and defendant, Pines Enterprises, Inc. (the landscaper), was one of the subcontractors. On December 10, 1981, the landscaper completed the installation of a sprinkling system and the planting of sod adjacent to a sidewalk leading to one of the show homes. Its contract with the owner required it to water the sod in the early morning and late afternoon for at least eight days following placement. Pursuant to contract, it operated the sprinklers and watered the sod and the sidewalk in the morning and afternoon of December 18, a cold and windy day.
On that afternoon, in response to advertisements, plaintiffs visited the development. They stepped on the sidewalk which, by that time, was covered with a thin sheet of transparent ice, and plaintiff Thomas White slipped and fell and injured his back.
Suit was filed against the owner and the landscaper. Prior to trial, plaintiffs settled their claim against the owner, and a jury trial resulted in the verdict that the remaining defendant, the landscaper, had not been negligent.
The trial court instructed the jury on the elements of liability when comparative negligence has been raised as an affirmative defense, using CJI-Civ.2d 9:2 (1984 Supp.). Immediately following that instruction, and over plaintiffs' objection, it gave a separate instruction as follows:
"Before a defendant can be deemed negligent, it must be proven by the plaintiffs by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant, Pines Enterprises, Inc., had a duty owing to the plaintiff, Thomas S. White."
Plaintiffs contend that giving this instruction unlawfully added an extra element for the jury to find--that the landscaper owed plaintiff a duty--which should have been decided as a matter of law by the trial court. We agree.
Whether there is a duty of care to plaintiff is not a matter to be submitted to or decided by a jury. Turner v. Grier, 43 Colo.App. 395, 608 P.2d 356 (1979). It is a question of law for decision by the trial court. Smith v. City & County of Denver, 726 P.2d 1125 (Colo.1986); Metropolitan Gas Repair Service, Inc. v. Kulik, 621 P.2d 313 (Colo.1980).
The trial court erred in not making that determination itself rather than leaving it for decision by the jury. The error was compounded by the failure to give any instruction defining "duty" to assist the jury in arriving at its decision on this non-jury issue.
The jury's finding that the landscaper was not negligent could very well have been predicated upon a conclusion by the jury that the existence of a "duty owing" had not been proven by plaintiffs. Thus, the giving of this instruction constituted prejudicial error. See Samuelson v. Chutich, 187 Colo. 155, 529 P.2d 631 (1974).
The landscaper argues that giving the duty instruction constituted harmless error because it owed no duty to plaintiff and the trial court should have directed a verdict in the landscaper's favor. We do not agree.
Here, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bittle v. Brunetti
...the owner discharged water onto the sidewalk and it turned to ice. Sill, 140 Colo. 436, 344 P.2d 972; see also White v. Pines Enterprises, Inc., 728 P.2d 759 (Colo.Ct.App.1986) (remanding for jury verdict as to whether landscaper breached duty of care by sprinkling public sidewalk on cold d......
-
Groh v. Westin Operator, LLC
...Groh is a member of a class—intoxicated guests—to whom harm from eviction is reasonably foreseeable. See White v. Pines Enterprises, Inc., 728 P.2d 759, 761 (Colo.App.1986) (landscaper who sprinkled sidewalk on a cold day “owed a general duty of care to all persons who might reasonably be f......
-
Parent v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.
...are not parties to the contract. See Craig v. Everett M. Brooks Co., 351 Mass. 497, 501, 222 N.E.2d 752 (1967); White v. Pines Enters., Inc., 728 P.2d 759, 761 (Colo.Ct.App.1986); Scott & Fetzer Co. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 129 Ill.App.3d 1011, 1019, 85 Ill.Dec. 53, 473 N.E.2d 421 (1984); ......
-
Geringer v. Wildhorn Ranch, Inc., Civ. A. No. 87-F-1213.
...(Colo.App.1987) (guest injured in toboggan accident at resort, liability turned on condition of toboggan path); White v. Pines Enterprises, Inc., 728 P.2d 759 (Colo.App.1986) (slip and fall, liability turned on negligent snow removal and duty to homebuyer The causation evidence in this case......