 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gillin v. Carrows Restaurants Inc.6/30/1994
DONNELLY, Judge.
Plaintiff, Wayne Gillin, appeals from the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant, Carrows Restaurants, Inc. (Carrows), and dismissing his personal injury claim. In challenging the award of summary judgment, Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in determining that Carrows had no duty to Plaintiff to safely maintain and illuminate the area of the parking lot where he allegedly fell. For the reasons discussed herein, we reverse.
FACTS
On August 11, 1992, Plaintiff filed a complaint for personal injuries against Carrows. Plaintiff alleged that after he exited Carrows at approximately 2:30 a. m., on August 10, 1989, he stepped off the sidewalk and was injured when he tripped and fell over a parking barrier in the parking lot adjacent to the restaurant. Plaintiff alleged that Carrows was negligent in failing to properly light the parking lot and in permitting the parking barriers to be placed in the parking area without proper marking. The trial court granted summary judgment based upon its determination that Plaintiff "tripped over a parking block in the common parking lot of the St. Michael's Village Shopping Center," and that Carrows owed no duty to Plaintiff.
Carrows' restaurant is located within the parking lot of the St. Michael's Village Shopping Center in Santa Fe. The restaurant building, and a portion of the parking area surrounding the structure, is leased to Carrows from "Coronado # 1" (the Landowner). Although part of the parking lot immediately adjacent to the restaurant building was included in the description of the premises leased by Carrows, customers of other businesses in the shopping center also were permitted to park there. Plaintiffs complaint did not join the Landowner as a named defendant.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is appropriate where the record reveals no triable issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ; ); . In reviewing an award of summary judgment, we engage in the same inquiry as the trial court, and consider the matters presented for and against such motion in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. ; see also . In reviewing an order awarding summary judgment, we take note of any evidence in the record which puts a material fact in issue. . Summary judgment is foreclosed where the record discloses the existence of a substantial dispute concerning a material factual issue.
Discussion
The trial court granted Carrows' motion for summary judgment based upon its determination that Carrows owed no duty to Plaintiff because it lacked control over the portion of the parking lot where the accident occurred. In reaching its Conclusion, the trial court stated in its memorandum opinion that "the lease agreement between Carrows and the [Landowner] clearly places responsibility for the parking lot [with the Landowner]," and that Carrows' actions in maintaining the pertinent portion of the parking area were not sufficient to establish "the assumption of that responsibility by Carrows" toward Plaintiff.
Because the trial court determined that there was an absence of any duty owing by Carrows toward Plaintiff to maintain or keep safe the area where Plaintiff was alleged to have fallen, our first inquiry focuses upon the correctness of this Conclusion. Under New Mexico law an owner or occupant of a business "owes a business visitor the duty to use ordinary care to keep the premises safe for use by the business visitor [or invitee]." SCRA 1986, 13-1309 (Repl. 1991); see also .
Determination of whether a party owes a duty to anoth
Page 1 2 3 4 New Mexico Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|