Williams v. Newton
Decision Date | 29 April 1988 |
Citation | 526 So.2d 18 |
Parties | Frances Louise WILLIAMS v. Sam NEWTON d/b/a Sam Newton Insurance Agency. 87-204. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
J. Wilson Mitchell of Colebeck, Yates & Mitchell, Florence, for appellant.
Kimberly A. Norris of Gonce, Young & Westbrook, Florence, for appellee.
This case involves a slip and fall accident. The plaintiff, Frances Louise Williams, appeals from a summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Sam Newton Insurance Agency. We reverse and remand.
Sam Newton owns and operates the Sam Newton Insurance Agency in Lexington, Alabama. On February 13, 1986, Williams parked her car in Newton's parking lot and entered his office through the front door. It is undisputed that Williams was a business invitee. As she left, after exiting the front door, she took two steps and slipped on a patch of ice and fell. Thereafter, she sued Newton for damages, alleging that Newton had negligently and/or wantonly failed to maintain his business premises in a reasonably safe condition and that his negligence and/or wantonness had caused serious injury to her. The trial court granted Newton's motion for summary judgment, and Williams appeals.
The question here is whether the summary judgment was proper. Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c), A.R.Civ.P. All reasonable doubts as to the existence of a question of fact must be resolved in favor of the non-moving party. Fountain v. Phillips, 404 So.2d 614 (Ala.1981).
Williams's affidavit, in pertinent part, reads as follows:
Newton's affidavit, in pertinent part, reads as follows:
It is uncontroverted that prior to Williams's fall Lexington had experienced an ice storm that had left most of the town covered with ice, including the parking lot and entrance to Newton's office. However, the date on which the ice storm struck Lexington is in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte Industrial Distribution Services Warehouse, Inc.
...observed through the exercise of reasonable care. If the danger is open and obvious, the invitor cannot be held liable. Williams v. Newton, 526 So.2d 18 (Ala.1988). Total darkness, possibly concealing an unseen and unknown hazard, presents an open and obvious danger to someone proceeding th......
-
Grider v. Grider
...the dangerous condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff's injury. This principle is illustrated by several cases. In Williams v. Newton, 526 So.2d 18 (Ala.1988), we determined that there was conflicting evidence as to whether the plaintiff had actual knowledge of ice at the entrance to ......
- Conner v. Bridges
-
Jackson v. Industrial Distribution Services Warehouse, Inc.
...from a danger that is known to the invitee or that the invitee should have observed by exercising reasonable care. See Williams v. Newton, 526 So.2d 18 (Ala.1988). IDSW argues that because "[d]arkness is a plain condition which is open and obvious," quoting Owens v. National Sec. of Alabama......