Court Opinion

ID: 9663798
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:51:24.970143+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:56.944009
License: Public Domain

White, C. J.,
dissenting.
In my opinion the following facts, either directly or inferentially, justify the trial judge’s submission and the jury finding of negligence in this case:
(1) Easterly, the defendant’s foreman, was specifically charged with the duty of removing ice from the *276premises, including the approaches. Easterly and the defendant’s president both testified to this fact. He had specific tools and materials for the job and had used them before.
(2) Plaintiff, a business invitee, slipped and fell on thin glare ice covering the sloping threshold to the doorway on defendant’s premises at 9 a.m. in the morning.
(3) Easterly, although present the day before, and at 7 a.m. on the, morning of the accident, made no inspection nor took any action whatsoever with reference to the doorway or the threshold leading to it.
(4) For several days prior to the accident there were snow piles in the vicinity of the threshold and doorway (Bundy an employee of plaintiff had scooped the snow).
(5) A general 4-inch snow had covered the area and the buildings, roofs, ledges, and other accessible places 4 days before the accident. This condition remained the same under constant freezing conditions until 2 p.m. the preceding (Wednesday) afternoon. The temperature then went above freezing and melting conditions prevailed from 2 p.m. to 11 p.m. and then the temperature went below freezing until the time of the, accident.
(6) No artificial conditions or independent agency created the thin glare ice. It resulted from a foreseeable sequence of natural weather conditions.
(7) The formation of thin glare ice on pavement or concrete from moisture condensation or melting during intermittent freezing temperatures, in wintertime Nebraska is so well known and common that the jury could take judicial notice of it as a matter of common knowledge.
(8) Conditions foreseeably resulting in the formation of the ice at the entryway were known or should have been known by Easterly from 2 p.m. the preceding afternoon until the time of the accident.
(9) The main entranceway was heavily trafficked. (There were only two.)
(10) The glare ice was present at the entrance way *27710 hours before the accident, and for 2 hours after the 7 a.m. opening of the building.
The above facts and reasonable inferences therefrom support a finding of negligence on Easterly’s part. Specifically commanded to perform this duty, he was charged with knowledge of probable icy and dangerous conditions at the entranceway of this business building. He should have known about them when he arrived at 7 a.m. but in any event, his 2-hour lag in performing his duty was evidence of negligence, if not inexcusable. A dog may be permitted the first bite before the owner is responsible but a maintenance man should not be permitted a first accident before he is required to remove or warn of glare ice at a heavily trafficked business building entranceway.
The majority opinion is a lucid and persuasive argument on the merits. But it does not reach the question of whether the facts and circumstances are directly and inferentially sufficient to find that the defendant was charged with knowledge of probable icy conditions, and the consequent duty to inspect, remove, or warn.
Boslaugh and McCown, JJ., concur in this dissent.