Court Opinion

ID: 9568729
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:07:03.269377+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:47:29.799881
License: Public Domain

Justice Meyer
dissenting.
The majority reverses the Court of Appeals’ affirmance of the trial judge’s entry of summary judgment for the defendant on the ground that the Court of Appeals “appears not to have given proper weight to the factual allegations in the plaintiff’s verified complaint,” which the majority finds, when taken in conjunction with the plaintiff’s affidavits, created a genuine issue of material fact. I disagree.
The only thing we have in the record before us from the plaintiff herself is her verified complaint and the results of her testimony upon deposition taken by defendant. Plaintiff furnished no personal affidavit of her own in response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint as to the negligent acts of the defendant are largely refuted in her deposition testimony.
In her complaint, plaintiff alleges that the lighting was inadequate, “making it impossible for the Plaintiff to see the raised portion of the sidewalk,” and that the “lighting in the area was so inadequate as to make the uneven sidewalk a hidden peril.” On deposition, however, she testified:
In the area of where the accident occurred, the lighting sources that illuminate this area consists of lighting from the overhead lights in the ceiling of the overhang at the emergency room doorway, the sidewalk lights that are spaced around the sidewalk and the pole lights around the driving circle. [And later in her deposition:] The overhead lighting is the main source of illumination of this section of the sidewalk.
*710... When I came back out later that night with my brother, I saw the uneven section of the sidewalk. There was enough light at this time [about midnight] to see the sidewalk condition.
. . . When my brother and I went back out to look at the sidewalk, there was enough lighting for me to see this unevenness.
With regard to the overhanging tree branches that allegedly distracted her, plaintiff alleged in her verified complaint that she “had to duck under the low hanging branch and then stumbled.” In her sworn deposition, plaintiff said:
I moved to the right and ducked down to miss the tree limbs; I raised back up and took a couple of steps when I stumped my toe and stumbled. . . .
When I tripped and had my accident, I had already passed from under the branches and I had regained my composure. The tree was to my right and behind me. The branches were hanging at the corner of the building. When I actually tripped, I was beyond the overhanging portion of the tree. I had ducked under the branches earlier and I was now standing upright when the accident occurred. I had regained my posture and I had actually passed the area where I had to duck under the branches.
I am not contending that the tree limb of the tree kept me from looking at the sidealk [sic]. I had already passed the tree limb before I stumbled.
Plaintiff further testified on deposition, inter alia, that:
I did not see the raised sidewalk until later that night when my brother pointed it out to me.
... I have seen other sidewalks where one section is raised above another due to either settlement or from tree roots. All you have to do is walk over any sidewalks that have been laid for any length of time and you will find uneven *711sidewalks. This is something I have encountered before. . . . I never did see the unevenness. As to why I didn’t see the uneven section of the sidewalk, this is probably because there were a lot of people on the sidewalk in this area and I wasn’t looking down at my feet. The people that came out of the emergency room were walking on the outside or the left side of the sidewalk and I was walking on the right side. As I was walking along the righthand side of the sidewalk, there was nothing obscuring my view of the sidewalk. . . .
... At this time I was looking in front of me. I have no recollection of ever that evening specifically of looking on the sidewalk. When I later went out at midnight with my brother, I looked and I saw the unevenness of the sidewalk. . . .
Had I been looking at the sidewalk as I was walking, I don’t know whether or not I could have seen the unevenness. If I had been focusing my full attention on the sidewalk, I would have seen the unevenness.
Thus, as to plaintiff’s contributory negligence, her own sworn testimony on deposition establishes, without contradiction, that (1) she never saw the raised sidewalk before she fell; (2) a raised place in the sidewalk was not unexpected, and she had encountered them before; (3) plaintiff was not looking down to see where she was placing her feet; (4) nothing obstructed her view of the sidewalk; (5) plaintiff does not remember ever once on that evening looking at the sidewalk; and (6) the unevenness was visible to her if she had looked, and she could have seen it if she had focused on where she was walking.
Plaintiff may not rely on inconsistencies in the allegation of her verified complaint and her own sworn testimony on deposition to create a genuine issue of material fact. The majority opinion of this Court, relying largely on allegations of plaintiff’s complaint that are refuted by her own testimony upon deposition, manufactures a genuine issue of material fact where none exists. The trial judge correctly allowed summary judgment for the defendant. The majority opinion of the Court of Appeals is well reasoned, and I vote to affirm it.