 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] McCloy v. Leisure Lake2/12/2003
Defendant property owner appeals the judgment for plaintiff in this slip-and-fall tort action. AFFIRMED.
Defendant property owner appeals the judgment for plaintiff in this slip-and-fall tort action. Leisure Lake, Inc., claims: (1) the district court erred in denying its motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict; (2) it is entitled to a new trial; and (3) it was prejudiced by the jury instructions. We affirm.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
On January 18, 1999, Suzanne McCloy drove to Sue's Hallmark in downtown Maquoketa. She parked across the street, slightly diagonal, to the store. She noticed the sidewalk in front of the store had been treated with salt pellets. As she left the store, she walked in a slightly different route than she took entering the store. McCloy slipped and fell on ice on the sidewalk in front of the APAC building, which was owned by Leisure Lake.
McCloy suffered injuries as a result of the fall. She has persistent, severe headaches. An occipital stimulator was placed in McCloy's body in an effort to block the pain. McCloy testified the occipital stimulator reduced her pain, but did not eliminate it. McCloy also had surgery for a ruptured disk in her neck. She has been diagnosed with dysthymia (depression) and somatoform disorder (a mental disorder) since the accident.
McCloy filed suit against Leisure Lake, alleging it was negligent by allowing snow and/or ice to accumulate on the sidewalk. Leisure Lake filed a third-party claim against APAC Customer Services, Inc. A jury returned a verdict assessing fault forty percent to McCloy and sixty percent to Leisure Lake. Total damages of $200,928.09 were awarded. Leisure Lake appeals.
II. Directed Verdict and Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict
Leisure Lake contends the district court should have granted its motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. It claims (1) the icy condition of the sidewalk was open and obvious; (2) McCloy voluntarily chose an unsafe, alternative route; (3) it did not have a reasonable time after the cessation of the storm to clear the ice; and (4) McCloy did not sufficiently show Leisure Lake's actions were a proximate cause of her injuries.
Our review of rulings on motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is for correction of errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. In considering both motions, we inquire whether substantial evidence exists to support the plaintiff's claim, justifying submission of the case to the jury. Channon v. United Parcel Serv., 629 N.W.2d 835, 839 (Iowa 2001). Evidence is substantial if a jury could reasonably infer a fact from the evidence. Balmer v. Hawkeye Steel, 604 N.W.2d 639, 640 (Iowa 2000). A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict must stand or fall on the grounds asserted in the motion for directed verdict. Channon, 629 N.W.2d at 839.
We determine there was sufficient evidence to submit each of the issues in contention to the jury. As the district court stated:
ach of the grounds urged by Leisure Lake are fact questions and it would be error for the Court to accept Leisure Lake's invitation to rule as a matter of law when it has a nice jury here who can rule as a matter of fact and eliminate the error.
We find no error in the district court's denial of the motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
III. Motion for New Trial
Leisure Lake claims it is entitled to a new trial because the jury's verdict was the result of passion or prejudice. The district court may grant an aggrie
Page 1 2 3 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|