Court Opinion

ID: 9623816
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:44:03.328933+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:35.085149
License: Public Domain

*342PERRY, C. J.,
dissenting.
I find I am unable to agree with the majority’s views under the facts of this ease.
The majority fails to mention the fact that according to plaintiff’s testimony the means of ingress and egress from the defendant’s parking lot to defendant’s store was through the rear door and that the sidewalks from which shoppers could enter and leave the front door of defendant’s store had been cleared of ice and snow. Therefore, since, as pointed out in the majority’s opinion, the plaintiff knew “that from her previous use of the parking lot * * * the defendant did not do anything to remove snow or ice from that area,” and as I have pointed out there was a safe means of ingress and egress to the store, it clearly appears that the plaintiff was not confronted with the necessity of “foregoing” the right to enter the store for the purpose of mailing a purchase.
The law is well established — and needs no citation of authority — to the effect that a person who needlessly encounters a known hazard is guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.
McAllister, J., and Lusk, J., join in this dissent.