Court Opinion

ID: 9645343
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:21:42.574349+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:27.440159
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Price, J.:
To my view the majority opinion in this appeal could well be entitled “Requiem for Compulsory Non-Suit.” If there was ever a case where the entry of a compulsory non-suit was proper, this is such a case. The majority quite accurately summarizes the factual situation as presented by appellants’ testimony and also quite accurately summarizes the duties of an appellate court upon review in such a situation.
However, after so doing, they conclude that appellants are entitled to go to a jury. I must strongly disagree with that conclusion.
The obvious weaknesses of appellants’ case are numerous. The first is that appellants are unable to prove what, if anything other than the floor tile, the appellant wife slipped on, and even if the inference could be drawn that she slipped on debris or liquid, it was not a hidden danger or peril which a reasonably prudent invitee would not have seen. It seems to me that the law is clear that evidence to inferentially establish causation for a fall because wetness was seen on a floor and the back of the person’s clothes were damp is insufficient to infer a cause or constructive notice. Further the law is well settled that there is no duty to guard or warn a *262guest or business visitor against a danger that is known or obvious and that a business visitor who enters and remains upon another’s land with full knowledge of the risk of injury created by the activity thereon, assumes the risk and may not recover.
Appellate courts of this state have over recent years been narrowing the historic concept of compulsory non-suits. Until today I had recognized that the concept was on the critical list but had held hopes for its ultimate recovery. With today’s decision I abandon that hope, and although the name lingers on in our procedural rules and in our reports, I feel that it will soon fade to a dim memory of better days gone by.
Quite obviously I would affirm the entry of the compulsory non-suit by the lower court.
JACOBS, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.