Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06017/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06017-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

FIL~ D 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSuoited Sta(es Court of Appeals 

Tenth Ci:"c.uit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

VIRGINIA SCHUMAKER, and her husband, 

HOWARD SCHUMAKER, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

G.M. HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC., an ) 

Oklahoma corporation; G.M. HOSPITALITY ) 

MANAGEMENT, INC., doing business as ) 

Holiday Inn of Elk City, an Oklahoma ) 

corporation; G. M. HOSPITALITY, INC., ) 

an Oklahoma corporation; ) 

G.M. HOSPITALITY, INC., doing business) 

as Holiday Inn of Elk City, an ) 

Oklahoma City corporation, ) 

SOUTHERN HOSPITALITY, INC., ) 

an Oklahoma corporation; SOUTHERN ) 

HOSPITALITY, INC., doing business ) 

as Holiday Inn of Elk City; G.M. & I. ) 

JOINT VENTURES, an Oklahoma corporation;) 

G.M. & I. JOINT VENTURES, doing business) 

as Holiday Inn of Elk City, ) 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

APR 4 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-6017 

(D.C. No. CIV-89-593-R) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-6017 Document: 010110031744 Date Filed: 04/04/1991 Page: 1 
assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiffs Virginia Schumaker and Howard Schumaker brought 

this action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained 

when Ms. Schumaker fell on defendants' premises. Ms. Schumaker 

asserted a negligence claim and Mr. Schumaker asserted a 

derivative loss of consortium claim. The case proceeded to trial 

and a jury returned a verdict in favor of Ms. Schumaker but 

against Mr. Schumaker. This appeal presents two issues: (1) 

whether the district court erred in granting defendants' motion 

for judgment n.o.v. on Ms. Schumaker's negligence claim and (2) 

whether the district court erred in denying Mr. Schumaker's motion 

for judgment n.o.v. on his loss of consortium claim. 

Our review of rulings on motions for judgment n.o.v. is de 

novo. Guilfoyle ex rel. Wild v. Missouri, Kan. & Tex. R.R. , 812 

F.2d 1290, 1292 (10th Cir. 1987). Judgment n.o.v. is appropriate 

when the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the 

nonmoving party, points but one way, in favor of the moving party. 

Lucas v. Dover Corp., Norris Div., 857 F.2d 1397, 1400 (10th Cir. 

1988). In determining whether the grant or denial of a motion for 

judgment n.o.v. is appropriate, we do not weigh the evidence or 

pass upon the credibility of witnesses. Id. 

With these principles in mind, we have reviewed the record on 

appeal and the parties' appellate briefs, and we concur in the 

district court's determinations. Undisputed evidence established 

that the dangerous condition which caused Ms. Schumaker to fall 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-6017 Document: 010110031744 Date Filed: 04/04/1991 Page: 2 
should have been observed by her in the exercise of ordinary care. 

Therefore, the dangerous condition was, as a matter of law, open 

and obvious and could not provide a basis for liability. 

~, Wise v. Roger Givens, Inc., 618 P.2d 951, 952 (Okla. App. 

1980). Moreover, because Ms. Schumaker is precluded from 

recovering on her negligence claim, Mr. Schumaker cannot recover 

on his derivative loss of consortium claim. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-6017 Document: 010110031744 Date Filed: 04/04/1991 Page: 3