 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wakefield v. Tygate Motel Corp.2/28/1994
MORSE, J. This case presents the question of how specific jury instructions must be at the request of a party. In this "slip and fall" personal injury action, plaintiffs Elaine and Roy Wakefield asked the court to relate the law of negligence to the factual setting -- ice on defendant's sidewalk -- in the jury instructions. The court did so in part, but not in as much detail as plaintiffs wanted. The jury rendered a verdict for defendant Tygate Motel Corporation. Plaintiffs appeal the jury instruction and also three evidentiary rulings, which they claim as a group constituted reversible error. We affirm.
I.
On March 19, 1989, Elaine Wakefield, a guest leaving defendant's motel in South Burlington, was injured when she slipped on ice and fell on defendant's sidewalk a short distance from the entrance.
Plaintiffs requested the trial court to instruct the jury that defendant had
a duty to exercise reasonable care . . . in keeping reasonably safe from the danger incident to accumulations of ice and snow. Such accumulations are bound to develop in the ordinary experience of the Vermont winter climate and are thus entirely foreseeable.
If you find that Tygate Motel Corporation knew or ought to have known of the existence of a dangerously icy condition on the walkways of the Econo Lodge on the date in question and failed to take reasonable steps to alleviate that condition, you must find that Tygate Motel Corporation breached the duty of care it owed Mrs. Wakefield.
(Emphasis added.) The court, however, instructed the jury in relevant part:
Defendant owed plaintiff the duty to use reasonable care to keep its premises in a safe and suitable condition.
Winter weather is a reality of life in this area. On the one hand slippery conditions cannot be wholly prevented, but on the other they are foreseeable.
The relevant differences between what plaintiffs requested and the court's instructions are apparent. Plaintiffs claim error occurred because the court did not mention "accumulations of ice and snow" and did not describe the spot where plaintiff fell as the "dangerously icy condition on the walkways."
Plaintiffs' request was taken virtually verbatim from Smith v. Monmaney, 127 Vt. 585, 588, 255 A.2d 674, 676 (1969), in which this Court held that one responsible for premises has a duty to use reasonable care to keep entrances safe from accumulation of ice and snow. We continue to agree with Smith, but point out that the same duty that applies specifically to the accumulation of ice on walkways applies generally to all parts of a premises and to any danger to persons. The dangerousness of a condition -- for example, the likelihood of slipping on an icy sidewalk as opposed to a merely wet sidewalk -- is a factor to consider when assessing whether defendant acted reasonably under the circumstances.
Plaintiffs begin their argument by saying that the "modern" rule, reflected in Smith, "which places an affirmative duty on the property owner to remove accumulations of snow and ice," was not reflected in the trial court's instruction. We note that such a rule, modern or ancient, is contrary to Smith and does not appear in any case we can find. Negligence is not viewed as an absolute rule of conduct but depends upon the circumstances. See id. (duty to keep sidewalk reasonably safe from ice and snow is not absolute, and defendant is not an insurer of plaintiff's safety).
Plaintiffs also claim that the instruction "was too general to provide any genuine guidance to the jury . . . would apply to any premises liability case -- indoors or out." Plaintiffs submit the court mu
Page 1 2 3 4 Vermont Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|