Title: Corbridge v. M. Morrin and Son, Inc.

State: utah

Issuer: Utah Supreme Court

Document:

19 Utah 2d 409 (1967) 432 P.2d 41 DALE W. CORBRIDGE AND DORLENE CORBRIDGE, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, v. M. MORRIN AND SON, INC., A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. No. 10853. Supreme Court of Utah. September 22, 1967. Froerer, Horowitz, Parker, Richards, Thornley & Critchlow, Richard Richards, Ogden, for appellants. Hanson & Baldwin, H. Wayne Wadsworth, Salt Lake City, for respondent. ELLETT, Justice: Plaintiffs appeal from a summary judgment rendered at the close of a pretrial conference. Dorlene Corbridge sued for injuries received when she fell into an unlighted excavation in a highway, and her husband, Dale, sued for lost wages he claims to have sustained when he ceased his employment to provide for his children while his wife was in the hospital and for sums of money paid to baby sitters during his wife's convalescence. We believe the motion was properly granted as to the husband because of the language of Section 30-2-4, U.C.A. 1953, which is as follows: The wife, if anybody, should recover the expenses incurred in connection with her injuries. The reasonable value of the services which she was unable to perform as a result of her injuries and which she otherwise would have performed would be part of her recovery if any she is entitled to. The record shows that the court had before it an affidavit of the injured plaintiff, who will hereafter be referred to as the plaintiff, together with her deposition taken by the defendant. It seems that the court believed the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law and hence he granted the motion for summary judgment. If there were any admissions made at the pretrial hearing other than those contained in the affidavit and deposition, they are not before this court. The defendant filed no affidavits, and so the summary judgment must be granted, if at all, in the light of the undisputed statements contained in plaintiff's affidavit and deposition. The facts as revealed in the two documents mentioned are as follows: These are the facts which the court had before it when it made its determination that plaintiff could not recover as a matter of law. Rule 56(c), Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, insofar as material here, provides as follows: In the case of Singleton v. Alexander et al, decided by this court on August 15, 1967, 19 Utah 2d 292, 431 P.2d 126, it was said: The defendant cites cases from this court where summary judgment has been sustained against plaintiffs who stepped into dark places when they could not see what lay ahead. However, it is a different matter when one is in a dark place and cannot see any better in one direction than in another. Here the plaintiff was in total darkness, and except for the tail lights of the car ahead of her she had nothing to guide her steps. Should she stand still by the car and hope other help might come along to pick her up from where she stood, or should she go to the car of the lady who was waiting for her a short distance ahead and whose tail lights marked a course for her to follow along what appeared to be a smooth road? Should she have left her headlights on, so she could more clearly see, and risk having a dead battery when she returned with help to start the car? The jury might think she acted as a reasonably prudent person. At least, the jury should have the opportunity of determining whether under all of the surrounding circumstances she acted as a reasonably prudent person would have done. It should also determine if the circumstances were such as to require the defendant to place barricades around the pit or to give some form of illumination to warn of its presence. We do not think the case of the injured plaintiff can be settled by a summary judgment, and we remand the case to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Costs to plaintiff. CROCKETT, C.J., and CALLISTER, TUCKETT and HENRIOD, JJ., concur.