Title: Caldwell v. Johnsen
Citation: 315 P.2d 524, 63 N.M. 179
Docket Number: 6214
State: new-mexico
Issuer: new-mexico Supreme Court
Date: September 11, 1957

315 P.2d 524 (1957) 63 N.M. 179 Horace CALDWELL and Grace Caldwell, Appellants, v. Thomas A. JOHNSEN, d/b/a J.C. Johnsen &amp; Son, Appellee. No. 6214. Supreme Court of New Mexico. September 11, 1957. *525 Harry L. Bigbee, Donnan Stephenson, Matias A. Zamora, Santa Fe, for appellants. H.E. Blattman, Las Vegas, for appellee. LUJAN, Chief Justice. This was an action in the district court of San Miguel County, instituted by plaintiffs-appellants against the defendant-appellee. Grace Caldwell seeks to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered by her because of the alleged negligence of the defendant. Horace Caldwell seeks to recover damages because of loss of services, consideration, companionship, aid and society of his wife, and for medical and hospital expenses occasioned by injuries sustained by her when she fell at the entrance to defendant's store. The negligence of the defendant is alleged as follows; By his answer, the defendant, denied the material allegations of negligence and alleged "that the negligence of the plaintiff, Grace Caldwell, heretofore alleged and her negligent acts, and omissions to act, directly contributed to and were a proximate cause of the damages complained of". At the close of plaintiffs case, on motion made by defendant, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of defendant, a judgment was entered thereupon and plaintiffs appeal. Ordinarily a question of negligence is one for the jury, but where, upon the undisputed testimony no facts or circumstances are shown which, in the minds of reasonable men, can be said to constitute a cause of action, based on negligence, it becomes a question of law to *526 be determined by the court, when the sufficiency of such evidence is properly challenged. Seal v. Safeway Stores, 48 N.M. 200, 147 P.2d 359; Dominguez v. Southwestern Greyhound Lines, 49 N.M. 13, 155 P.2d 138; Boyce v. Brewington, 49 N.M. 107, 158 P.2d 124, 163 A.L.R. 583. The record discloses that the defendant had continuously, since 1906, operated a furniture and hardware store on Douglas Avenue and Seventh Street in the City of Las Vegas; that the entrance into the store is by way of a wide vestibule which has been in existence since 1914; that said vestibule ramps down to a stone step about four or five inches above the sidewalk; that next to the sidewalk it is ten or twelve feet in width and angles towards the doors to the store where it is seven feet in width; that on the east and west sides of the vestibule there are two display windows which are maintained for the purpose of displaying merchandise; and that no one upon entering or leaving the store had ever fallen in the vestibule or on account of the step prior to June 15, 1955 when the plaintiff, Grace Caldwell, fell and injured herself. Mrs. Caldwell was a customer of defendant's store and had been a regular visitor there for some ten years prior to the injury. Customers, including Mrs. Caldwell, entered from the sidewalk from which one step, five inches high, led upward onto a vestibule and then to the doors of the store. Persons entering defendant's store were charged with knowledge that they were not entering from a level sidewalk, and that the vestibule was not of the same elevation as the sidewalk. She testified that on June 15, 1955, at about 10:00 o'clock in the forenoon she visited the defendant's store for the purpose of having some keys made, and that on her way out she fell and injured herself. Using her own language she stated: On direct examination: "Q. Alright? A. You said I was looking at the exhibit window, you have to be about two foot when you open that door to come out, then you have to be that far away to see what was in the window, then I suddenly fell. Viewing this testimony in the light most favorable to the plaintiff we must conclude that it constitutes no cause of action against the defendant. There are no facts and circumstances which would justify a finding of actionable negligence. Counsel for the plaintiffs calls our attention to the cases of Bloomer v. Snellenburg, 1908, 221 Pa. 25, 69 A. 1124, 21 L.R.A.,N.S., 464, and Hendricken v. Meadows, 1891, 154 Mass. 599, 28 N.E. 1054 which he claims support his contention on the inferences to be drawn. An examination of these cases, however, indicates that both of them had more evidence and established facts from which proper inferences could be drawn of plaintiff's allegation of negligence against the defendant. In the instant case, there is a failure of proof of certain elements as above shown. The plaintiffs are entitled, of course, to have inferences drawn in their favor, but they must be reasonably based on other facts established in evidence and not based merely on conjecture or on other inferences. De Baca v. Kahn, 49 N.M. 225, 161 P.2d 630. Under the facts and circumstances in the case at bar we are forced to the conclusion that plaintiffs failed to make out a submissible case of the liability of the defendant, and defendant's motion for a directed verdict was properly sustained. The judgment must be affirmed. It is so ordered. SADLER, McGHEE, COMPTON and KIKER JJ., concur.