Court Opinion

ID: 989575
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:08:46.861662+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:19:54.411098
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MARGARET MUNDELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                                 No. 95-2739
CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY, a
corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
William M. Kidd, Senior District Judge.
(CA-92-52-1)

Argued: May 8, 1996

Decided: June 13, 1996

Before HALL and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN,
Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Brent E. Beveridge, BEVERIDGE LAW OFFICES, Fair-
mont, West Virginia, for Appellant. Steven Paul McGowan, STEP-
TOE & JOHNSON, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. ON
BRIEF: Jace H. Goins, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Margaret Mundell brought this action against Consolidation Coal
Company (Consolidation), asserting that she was injured as a proxi-
mate result of the company's breach of its duty to maintain its prem-
ises in a reasonably safe condition. The district court granted
summary judgment against Mundell, concluding that there were no
genuine issues of material fact and that as a matter of law Consolida-
tion had not breached its duty to her. We affirm.

I.

Mundell traveled to the offices of Consolidation in June 1990 in
order to conduct business relating to the recent death of her husband,
who had been employed by the company for many years. After open-
ing an exterior glass door, Mundell observed a single step with the
words "WATCH" and "STEP" painted in yellow across its top. She
negotiated the single step up, then traversed a short, lighted walkway
that was enclosed by three walls made partially of glass and entered
the building after opening an interior door. Approximately one-half
hour later, Mundell completed her business and began to exit the
building via the same route. But, as she walked between the interior
and exterior doors, she fell while stepping off the single step and sus-
tained personal injuries.

Mundell filed suit against Consolidation, asserting that it had
breached its duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condi-
tion by failing to reconstruct the entrance of the building to eliminate
the step. After discovery, the district court granted Consolidation's
motion for summary judgment. It reasoned that since Mundell was a
business invitee of Consolidation, the duty it owed her was to correct
only hidden defects in its premises. See Burdette v. Burdette, 127
S.E.2d 249, 252 (W. Va. 1962). Because of her admission that she

                     2
had seen both the step and the accompanying warning while walking
into the building, the district court concluded that even if the step
were dangerous, the defect was known and obvious to her and, thus,
that Consolidation had no duty to redesign the entrance. Accordingly,
it entered summary judgment in favor of Consolidation.

II.

Mundell argues that the district court improperly applied the law
of West Virginia in determining that she had failed to establish that
Consolidation bore responsibility for her injuries. After carefully con-
sidering the arguments and briefs of counsel and reviewing the
record, we affirm the grant of summary judgment for reasons ade-
quately stated by the district court in its memorandum opinion and
order. Mundell v. Consolidation Coal Co., No. 92-52 (N.D. W. Va.
Aug. 25, 1995).

AFFIRMED

                    3