Court Opinion

ID: 9547827
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:52:55.516499+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:08.077578
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
dissenting, with whom ROSE, Justice, joins.
I agree with the other members of the court that the summary judgment entered in favor of Noecker Enterprises, Leroy Noecker and James Noecker must be affirmed. I join with Justice Rose, however, in his dissent to Part II of the court’s majority opinion. In addition I have a perspective of my own which I have concluded requires a separate statement.
In his dissenting opinion, at footnote 3, Justice Rose quotes the following testimony by deposition of the plaintiff:
“Q. Bill, let me ask you to explain, I guess in one sentence why you fell?
“A. Why I fell?
“Q. Yeah.
“A. Because I was forced to step off the — off the sidewalk into a snow, icy area with holes in it, and as I stepped off the curb, my foot went out from underneath me and it caught.” (Emphasis added.)
Perhaps it is simply because I am less discerning than my brothers on the court, but I am convinced that one could infer from this testimony that the holes were in the street, not in the snow. My perception of Part II of the majority opinion is that it depends upon a factual conclusion that there was no defect in the surface of the *708street and that the only obstacle encountered by the appellant was the pile of snow. My position is that if there were a hole in the street then there would be no question of the right of the appellant to a jury trial. In deciding the case as the majority does the court is deciding a question of fact, i.e., were the holes in the snow or in the street? Because of the presence of this question of fact I then rely upon the universal rule that a summary judgment should not be granted or sustained unless there is no issue of material fact. This issue of fact is material, and it exists. The summary judgment in favor of the City of Gillette should not be sustained.