Court Opinion

ID: 9951334
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-15 19:19:24.705645+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:38:41.746929
License: Public Domain

No. 22-625, Denise Orso v. The City of Logan                                    FILED
                                                                            March 15, 2024
WOOTON, J., dissenting:                                                         released at 3:00 p.m.
                                                                             C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK
                                                                           SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                 OF WEST VIRGINIA

              Our law is clear that “[n]o action for negligence will lie without a duty

broken.” Syl. Pt. 1, in part, Parsley v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 167 W. Va. 866, 280

S.E.2d 703(1981). Also, “[n]egligence is the violation of the duty of taking care under the

given circumstances. It is not absolute, but is always relative to some circumstance of time,

place, manner, or person.” Syl. Pt. 1, Dicken v. Liverpool Salt & Coal Co., 41 W. Va. 511,

23 S.E. 582 (1895). This Court explained in Strahin v. Cleavenger, 216 W. Va. 175, 603

S.E.2d 197 (2004), that duty is not “an inflexible principle.” Id. at 184, 603 S.E.2d at 206.

In this regard, we reiterated our law enunciated in syllabus point three of Sewell v. Gregory,

179 W. Va. 585, 371 S.E.2d 82 (1988), wherein we held that

                     [t]he ultimate test of the existence of a duty to use care
              is found in the foreseeability that harm may result if it is not
              exercised. The test is, would the ordinary man in the
              defendant’s position, knowing what he knew or should have
              known, anticipate that harm of the general nature of that
              suffered was likely to result?

Strahin, 216 W. Va. at 184, 603 S.E.2d at 206. We then reasoned that

              [t]his test obviously involves a mix of legal and factual
              determinations which must be made regarding foreseeability in
              relation to duty in negligence cases. As this Court said over
              100 years ago,

                     the most the court can ordinarily do, when the
                     question of care or negligence depends upon a
                     variety of circumstances, is to define the decree
                     (sic) of care and caution required by the law and

                                              1
                     leave to the practical judgment of the jury the
                     work of comparing the acts and conduct of the
                     parties with the duties required of them under the
                     circumstances.

              Syl. Pt. 2, in part, Washington v. B. & O. R.R. Co., 17 W.Va.
              190, 1880 WL 4038 (W.Va.1880).

Strahin, 216 W. Va. at 184-85, 603 S.E.2d at 206-07. The Court then held that “[w]hen the

facts about foreseeability as an element of duty are disputed and reasonable persons may

draw different conclusions from them, two questions arise—one of law for the judge and

one of fact for the jury.” Strahin, 216 W. Va. at 179, 603 S.E.2d at 201, Syl. Pt. 11. Thus,

                      [a] court’s overall purpose in its consideration of
              foreseeability in conjunction with the duty owed is to discern
              in general terms whether the type of conduct at issue is
              sufficiently likely to result in the kind of harm experienced
              based on the evidence presented. If the court determines that
              disputed facts related to foreseeability, viewed in the light most
              favorable to the plaintiff, are sufficient to support
              foreseeability, resolution of the disputed facts is a jury
              question.

Id. at 180, 603 S.E.2d at 202, Syl. Pt. 12.

              In affirming the circuit court’s order granting the City’s motion for summary

judgment, the majority, like the circuit court, embarked on its own assessment of the

foreseeability component discussed supra – instead of placing this question in the capable

hands of a jury. 1 The majority then concludes that “there is no evidence demonstrating that

       1
         “Questions of negligence, due care, proximate cause and concurrent negligence
present issues of fact for jury determination when the evidence pertaining to such issues is
conflicting or where the facts, even though undisputed, are such that reasonable men may

                                              2
Respondent knew or should have known that the wire was on the sidewalk causing a

potential hazard when Petitioner fell.” While the majority reached this conclusion, I believe

that a jury could have viewed these same facts and concluded the opposite – that based

upon the City’s actions it was reasonably foreseeable that the City knew or should have

known of this potential hazard.

              Although the City’s street commissioner testified that he had never received

any complaints about the subject loop of cable wire, he also testified that he and other City

personnel—in the discharge of their job duties—did visual inspections of the downtown

properties several times a week, including the area of Ms. Orso’s fall, where it was

undisputed that the loop of cable wire had been present for at least ten years. 2 A jury could

have found that it was foreseeable that the City’s street commissioner, who was

affirmatively looking for potential hazards on the City’s sidewalks multiple times a week,

either knew or at least should have known that the hazard which caused Ms. Orso’s injuries

existed.

              Summary judgment is appropriate only where “the record could not lead a

rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, such as where the nonmoving party

draw different conclusions from them.” Syl. Pt. 4, Aikens v. Debow, 208 W. Va. 486, 541
S.E.2d 576 (2000) (citation omitted).
       2
         When asked how often he conducted these visual inspections, the street
commissioner testified “we’re out on the streets every day. . . . I mean Monday through
Friday, unless it’s a holiday. I mean we’re out every day.”

                                              3
has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of the case that it has the

burden to prove.” Syl. Pt. 2, in part, Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc., 194 W. Va. 52, 459

S.E.2d 329 (1995). Because at least one triable issue exists in this case, I disagree with the

majority’s decision to uphold the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment to the City.

Jury trials are the backbone of our judicial system. This Court must assiduously ensure that

the circuit courts (and appellate courts) do not decide questions of fact and usurp authority

from the jury. Accordingly, I would reverse the circuit court’s summary judgment order

and remand this case for additional proceedings.

              Based on the foregoing, I respectfully dissent.

                                              4