Court Opinion

ID: 9672892
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:02:26.828608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:19.025651
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
The appellee, in its motion for rehearing, forcefully argues that this court was in error in sustaining the appellants’ final point —that the finding of “open and obvious” is evidentiary — for the reason that the only objection made by the appellants to the submission of the issue was that there was no evidence, or insufficient evidence, to support the submission of such issue to the jury. No objection was made to the submission of the issue that it was eviden-tiary.
While issues not objected to, but determined to be evidentiary, are sometimes treated as not being issues at all, we feel that the appellee’s complaint can be disposed of on a much sounder basis. Not only did the appellee request the “open and obvious” issue, but it went farther and requested and obtained a full submission of the defense of volenti non fit injuria in Special Issues 9, 10 and 11. By the first of these issues, the jury was asked if Mrs. Goodson knew of the existing condition, including the foreign substance known as an Icee, upon the floor of the store. To this issue the jury answered “No”. The balance of the volenti issues were submitted conditionally only upon “yes” findings, and therefore were not answered. Under the “no duty” concept, the occupier owes no duty if the invitee has, (a) actual knowledge of the condition, (b) knowledge of the danger, and (c) appreciation of the danger; and there has been a distinct finding that Mrs. Goodson had no actual knowledge of the condition. Without favorable findings to these elements of “no duty”, the answer to the “open and obvious” issue avails the appellee no relief.
For this reason, the motion for rehearing is overruled.