Opinion ID: 2595423
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the nisi prius summary judgment under review is erroneous

Text: ¶ 9 The question to be answered here is whether the evidentiary materials tendered by plaintiffs were sufficient to place disputed material (on the merits) facts in issue and hence to defeat defendants' motion for summary judgment. While the mere contention that material facts are in dispute is not sufficient to defeat a plea for summary judgment, neither is the nonmovant to be held to the standard of producing forensic evidence. [15] The nonmovant must merely present something which shows that when the date of trial arrives, he will have some proof to support his allegations. [16] For an item of evidentiary material to be insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment, it must either facially lack probative value or be incapable of conversion at trial to admissible evidence. [17] ¶ 10 The affidavit of plaintiffs' licensed exterminator is not facially lacking in probative value, nor is it incapable of conversion at trial to admissible evidence. The elements of negligence are: (1) a duty owed by the defendant to protect the plaintiff from injury, (2) a failure properly to exercise or perform that duty, and (3) an injury to plaintiff proximately caused by the defendant's breach of that duty. [18] Plaintiffs' licensed exterminator's affidavit speaks to the elements of duty and breach of duty by raising an issue of material fact as to the liability of defendants for the alleged negligence of the their extermination contractor. This provides a sufficient evidentiary basis to defeat defendants' quest for summary judgment. ¶ 11 An innkeeper in Oklahoma continues to have a status-based, common-law duty of care to a guest. [19] This duty remains unaltered by inspection and licensing statutes enacted under the police power of the state. [20] The owner or operator of a motel is not an insurer of his guests' personal safety. [21] Often described as a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe and suitable condition, [22] the innkeeper's common-law responsibility applies only to defects or conditions which are in the nature of hidden dangers, traps, snares, pitfalls, and the like things which are not readily observable. [23] The duty is fulfilled when reasonable care is taken to prevent the invitee's exposure to dangers which are more or less hidden, not obvious. [24] ¶ 12 Although a hirer ordinarily cannot be held liable for the negligence of an independent contractor, the rule of non-liability does not apply where the hirer contracts for the performance of a duty imposed by law. [25] Hence, while an innkeeper may hire an independent contractor to perform the former's nondelegable duty, he (or she) may not pass off to an independent contractor the ultimate legal responsibility for the proper performance of that duty. [26] Under the nondelegable duty rule, an innkeeper may be held vicariously liable for an independent contractor's failure to exercise reasonable care even if the innkeeper has himself exercised due care. [27] ¶ 13 The duty of an innkeeper to provide a reasonably safe premises encompasses the duty to use effective measures of pest control. A defendant owes a duty of care to all persons who are foreseeably endangered by his conduct with respect to all risks which make the conduct unreasonably dangerous. [28] The improper or ineffective application of pest control agents creates a foreseeable risk of harm to motel guests from the presence of what may otherwise be eradicable pests. At a minimum, insects, arachnids, and other undesirable creatures in a motel room pose an annoyance; at worst, as here alleged, they can pose a hidden, unexpected danger to unsuspecting motel guests. Cases cited by defendants for the proposition that innkeepers have no duty to guests to prevent injury from insects and other eradicable pests are either distinguishable or unpersuasive. [29] ¶ 14 Because the innkeeper's duty of care to invitees is nondelegable, the duty to use effective measures of pest control encompasses not only the motel's own actions or omissions, but also those of an independent contractor/exterminator with whom the motel contracts to perform the services. ¶ 15 The affidavit of the licensed exterminator offered by plaintiffs in the case under review raises a disputed fact issue as to whether the Days Inn's extermination contractor might have been negligent in the performance of the pest control services. Plaintiffs are entitled to a jury's consideration of this dispositive issue.