Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02218/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02218-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc.
Appellee
Lisa J. Paulk
Appellant

Document Text:

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSUnltld Stats C,ourt~ Appcnls Tenth Circwt 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

SEP 2 5 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

LISA J. PAULK, Clerk 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

CERKVENIK-ANDERSON TRAVEL, INC., 

doing business as College Tours, 

doing business as El Caracol/Tango 

Palace, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 90-2218 

) (D.C. No. CIV 89-0546HB) 

) (D. N.M.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

In this diversity action, plaintiff appeals the district 

court's order granting defendant summary judgment on plaintiff's 

* 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: 90-2218 Document: 010110090676 Date Filed: 09/25/1991 Page: 1 
negligence claim based on a premises liability theory. 1 Plaintiff 

asserts the sole issue presented on appeal is whether there exists 

a genuine issue of material fact concerning defendant's status as 

possessor of the property upon which plaintiff suffered injury. 

Upon careful review of the record, we determine that a material 

question of fact does not exist, and, therefore, we affirm the 

district court's award of summary judgment to defendant. 

This court reviews a district court's decision granting 

summary judgment de nova, viewing the record in the light most 

favorable to the nonmoving party. Abercrombie v. City of Catoosa, 

896 F.2d 1228, 1230 (10th Cir. 1990). A party will be entitled to 

summary judgment if there is no genuine issue of material fact and 

the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 

The following facts are undisputed: Defendant organizes and 

operates tours to Mazatlan, Mexico, for college students. 

Plaintiff travelled to Mazatlan on one of defendant's tours. As 

part of the tour package, plaintiff attended what was billed by 

defendant as a private party in a disco, El Caracol/Tango Palace. 

As a member of defendant's tour, plaintiff was admitted to the 

disco for one-half the regular admission price. 

1 In her complaint, plaintiff asserted three claims against 

defendant Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc., and one claim against 

El Caracol/Tango Palace. The district court dismissed the latter 

claim without prejudice because plaintiff failed to serve El 

Caracol/Tango Palace. The district court granted summary judgment 

in favor of defendant Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc., on all 

three claims. Plaintiff appeals only the district court's 

decision awarding summary judgment to defendant on the premises 

liability claim. 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-2218 Document: 010110090676 Date Filed: 09/25/1991 Page: 2 
The disco featured a fire pole upon which patrons could slide 

down from the third floor to the first floor. Plaintiff slid down 

the pole expecting cushions to break her descent. The cushions, 

however, were not positioned around the fire pole on the first 

floor. Plaintiff, as a result of the uncushioned fall, broke her 

right leg and her left ankle. 

In her complaint, plaintiff asserted that defendant 

10. . as lessee of the business 

Caracol/Tango Palace was a possessor of 

and as such owed a duty to invitees 

activities with reasonable care for 

invitees, and to protect invitees 

conditions of which the invitee does not 

reason to know. 

premises at El 

the property, 

to carry on its 

the safety of 

from dangerous 

know or have 

11. [Defendant] breached its duty to Plaintiff by 

failing to exercise ordinary care for her safety. 

Rec. vol. I, doc. 1. 

Possessors of land have a duty to prevent harm to persons 

invited onto their property. See Mozert v. Noedinq, 415 P.2d 364, 

366-67 (N.M. 1966)(citing Restatement (Second) of Torts S 343). 

Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing defendant's possession 

or control over the premises. See Fabian v. E.W. Bliss Co., 582 

F.2d 1257, 1260 (10th Cir. 1978)(in asserting negligence cause of 

action, plaintiff bears the burden of proving defendant owed a 

duty to plaintiff)(applying New Mexico law). 

Although plaintiff alleged defendant was the lessee of the 

disco and that defendant exerted control over the premises, 

plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence in support of these 

allegations. Because she failed to make a sufficient showing 

tending to establish the existence of the element of defendant's 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-2218 Document: 010110090676 Date Filed: 09/25/1991 Page: 3 
control over the disco premises, which is an essential element of 

her premises liability claim and an element upon which plaintiff 

bears the burden of proof, the district court did not err in 

granting defendant's motion for sununary judgment. See Celotex 

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). 

The district court's order granting defendant's motion for 

summary judgment is, therefore, AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

James E. Barrett 

Senior Circuit Judge 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-2218 Document: 010110090676 Date Filed: 09/25/1991 Page: 4