Title: Albright v. McElroy
Citation: 207 Kan. 233, 484 P.2d 1010
Docket Number: 45,943
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: May 15, 1971

207 Kan. 233 (1971)
484 P.2d 1010
JAMES ALBRIGHT, a Minor, by and Through His Mother and Next Friend, Bedola M. Ross, Appellant,
v.
ROBERT D. McELROY, d/b/a BOB'S DITCHING SERVICE, et al., Appellee.
No. 45,943

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed May 15, 1971.
Payne H. Ratner, Jr., of Ratner, Mattox, Ratner, Ratner and Barnes, of Wichita, argued the cause, and Patrick L. Dougherty, of the same firm was with him on the brief for the appellant.
Paul Kitch, of Fleeson, Gooing, Coulson and Kitch, of Wichita, argued the cause, and Donald R. Newkirk and Richard I. Stephenson, of the same firm were on the brief for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HARMAN, C.:
This appeal is by a youthful plaintiff from summary judgment rendered against him in his action for damages resulting from a fall into an excavation made by defendant.
Briefly stated, so far as now pertinent, plaintiff's petition alleged that defendant was engaged as a subcontractor on a construction job for the Grace Lutheran Church located near Pawnee and Hillside streets in the city of Wichita and as such agreed to perform certain excavation work necessary for installation of a sanitary sewer; that on July 18, 1968, defendant caused a large excavation to be made on an easement adjoining the church property and in close proximity to Pawnee street, and upon completion permitted the excavation to remain open but installed two small *234 barricades with two small lights near it; that the barricades were inadequate to warn pedestrians concerning the location and dangerous character of such excavation; on July 18, 1968, about 10:00 p.m. plaintiff was walking along the north side of Pawnee when he fell into the excavation and suffered severe injuries, such occurrence being proximately caused by defendant's negligence.
Defendant filed his answer admitting he was engaged as a subcontractor to perform certain excavation work at the construction site and that plaintiff sustained some injury at the approximate time and place in question but denying defendant was guilty of any negligence causing the injury. Defendant also alleged contributory negligence.
In sustaining defendant's motion for summary judgment the trial court had before it the pleadings, answers to interrogatories and certain discovery depositions. The latter included those of plaintiff, the five boys who accompanied him at the time of the incident and the defendant.
These depositions disclosed that on July 18, 1968, defendant and his employees, pursuant to specifications furnished by the city of Wichita, had dug a large hole on the south side of Pawnee street, across from the church, for the purpose of building a manhole there and laying a drain across the street northward to the church. The hole was about twelve by fourteen feet in size and from fourteen to twenty feet in depth. It was about one foot from the south edge of Pawnee street but had a twenty-four inch wide notch on the north side which came within six or eight inches of the side of the asphalt street. The hole was located on a twenty-five foot parking easement. A pathway on the south side of the hole was used by pedestrians but there was no sidewalk.
Defendant testified he and his employees had left the excavation between 4:30 and 5:00 p.m. on the day in question; before leaving they had placed four barricades around it, one on each side. Two more barricades were placed on the street, one being fifty-feet east of the hole and the other fifty feet west of it. The barricades were of a wooden sawhorse type construction with a yellow flashing light mounted on each. Some of the dirt had been trucked away and some remained about the hole.
Plaintiff, who was nearly fourteen years of age at the time he was injured, testified that earlier in the day he and a friend had gone to a hamburger stand at Hillside and Pawnee and had observed construction in progress at the church but did not notice *235 the hole; about 9:00 p.m. he had again gone to the hamburger stand with three other boys; en route they did not go past the church site but took a short cut through some yards; he had no recollection of events occurring that night after they left the hamburger stand.
The other five youths, who ranged in age from thirteen to fifteen years, testified substantially that they left the hamburger stand together with plaintiff about 9:30 to 10:00 p.m. walking east down Pawnee street. They noticed the barricades, flashing lights and the hole. The boys' testimony varied as to the exact number and location of the barricades and as to the precise manner in which plaintiff fell into the hole except that he went in where the notch was made near the edge of the street. The boys had remained about the hole several minutes before plaintiff fell in and talked about taking one of the yellow lights. Plaintiff was facing south when he went into the hole. One boy testified there was no barricade on the north side of the hole. Rocks were tossed into the hole to see how deep it was. Several of the boys had gone by the hole earlier in the day and knew it was there. One boy gave the following testimony (plaintiff, whose full name is James Christopher Albright, is referred to throughout as Chris):
In Hastain v. Greenbaum, 205 Kan. 475, 481, 470 P.2d 741, we quoted approvingly from 3 Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, rules edition, § 1234, as follows:
Plaintiff urges the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact remained unresolved. He stresses the disagreement as to the exact number and placement of the barricades at the time of his fall and also that the adequacy and sufficiency of the warning given was in question. He states the paramount issue was whether the protection and warning given by defendant was reasonably safe under the circumstances and that, therefore, the nature and the placing of the barricades around the hole was very material. He emphasizes the testimony of one or two of the boys to the effect there was no barricade on the north side of the hole, and also testimony that all of a sudden he fell into the hole.
Certainly there was never any dispute concerning the fact plaintiff fell into the hole. Defendant's answer specifically admitted plaintiff was injured at the time and place alleged, and all the evidence on the point verified the fall. In our view the exact or precise manner in which he fell was of little or no consequence. As already indicated, the petition charged negligence in the inadequacy of the barriers to warn pedestrians concerning the location and character of the excavations. The trial court ruled in effect that plaintiff had not shown actionable negligence on the part of defendant. Defendant now defends the judgment upon that ground rather than contributory negligence (without conceding the latter defense is inapplicable), asserting the record is conclusive that defendant discharged his legal duty to plaintiff.
Here all the witnesses to plaintiff's actions, and the conditions existing at the time, testified. Discovery apparently had been completed. Unfortunately for plaintiff, he was unable to supply more information. Giving to his evidence the most favorable *245 construction it reasonably bears, we must agree with defendant's contentions. The function of a warning is simply to convey knowledge or notice. The particular manner in which defendant warned plaintiff of the excavation is immaterial if in fact effective notice was given. It appears undisputed that such notice was given. The evidence was that lights on the barricades were flashing and the party of boys, including plaintiff, stopped several minutes at the excavation and even discussed taking one of the warning lights. It was undisputed plaintiff knew of the hole and actually sat down with his feet dangling in it  no testimony given was inconsistent with that fact.
Defendant was not an insurer of plaintiff's safety. As a contractor in the prosecution of work adjacent to a street, his duty was to exercise reasonable care for the protection of those rightfully in proximity to the work (65 C.J.S., Negligence, §§ 63[144], 84; see also, Walton v. Noel Co., 167 Kan. 274, 205 P.2d 928). Here the breach of duty relied upon was inadequacy of the warning as to the hole but it was established plaintiff had positive knowledge of the hole. Whatever the type of warning given was, it conveyed the message and thereby satisfied the requirement of reasonable care. The rule is that where proper notice or warning of a dangerous condition is given by one bound to give it, he generally is relieved for injury received by another who does not heed it (see 65 C.J.S., Negligence, § 89b). Notice or warning of the dangerous condition was given and under the proof we must hold that defendant was relieved from liability for injury received by plaintiff who obviously did not heed that warning and rendition of summary judgment was proper because no claim for relief existed.
The judgment is affirmed.
APPROVED BY THE COURT.