Court Opinion

ID: 9536989
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:10:43.760376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:41.222621
License: Public Domain

OPINION SUTIN, Judge. This is an appeal from a directed verdict granted defendants, arising out of a suit to recover damages for aggravation of a personal injury. Elizabeth A. Elliott, while skiing, fell and suffered a compression fracture of the bone of the left leg at the hip joint. We reverse. The trial court directed a verdict on the following grounds: (1) the defendants were not negligent as a matter of law; (2) Elliott was contributorily negligent as a matter of law; (3) there was lack of proof as to the extent of the aggravation of the injury. The rules relating to a motion for a directed verdict are in Garcia v. Barber’s Super Markets, Inc., 81 N.M. 92, 463 P.2d 516 (Ct.App.1969). Thus, in our view, we consider the evidence and inferences most favorable to Elliott. Taos Ski Valley’s Negligence and Elliott’s Contributory Negligence were Issues of Fact for the Jury.  On and before February 12, 1967, Taos Ski Valley operated for profit, a ski area m Taos County pursuant to a term Special Use Permit issued by the United States Forest Service. Under this permit, Taos Ski Valley agreed, (1) to provide and maintain a sufficient quantity of first aid supplies to care for all accidents that may occur; (2) provide and place toboggans fully equipped with blankets, splints, etc.; (3) provide a room in which to temporarily care for at least three injured persons; (4) provide for adequate and systematic patrol of the permitted area for the prevention of accidents and for rescue and first aid purposes; (5) the patrol shall meet the qualifications of the National Ski Association; all in accordance with a comprehensive safety plan jointly prepared by Taos Ski Valley and the District Ranger. Taos Ski Valley also agreed to provide a ski school. On February 11, 1967, Elliott entered into a contract with Taos Ski Valley to take private lessons in the sport or art of skiing, and Taos Ski Valley provided Georgia Hotton as instructor. Miss Hotton was listed as a fully certified ski instructor with knowledge of the contents of the first aid manual. This manual included information about injuries to bones, joints and muscles, signs and symptoms thereof, and essentials of first aid. On February 12, 1967, for aid and rescue, Taos Ski Valley had eight aluminum akais, sometimes called sleds or toboggans, equipped with sleeping bags, first aid equipment and splints. The akais were located at the top of the ski lift and at the first aid hut where the injured were to be taken. It also maintained a paid and fully equipped ski patrol, utilizing one or two way radios. On that morning, Elliott, a widow, 49 years of age, accompanied by Hotton, fell on her left hip and injured herself. She told Hotton she injured her leg. Hotton helped her up and then Hotton, moving forward, hollered, “Come on, come on.” So Elliott went down the best way she could to a little snow field. Hotton then Started on down, and Elliott tried to follow her, but her leg could not carry any-weight and she fell on her right side this time. Hotton came back and said, “You have a pulled muscle.” Elliott believed her, but said she could not ski anymore, and said, “What shall I do ?” Miss Hotton took Elliott’s skis and left her with the poles, because the poles would be needed in walking to the lodge. She told Elliott to meet her at the lodge. Then hollered at Elliott, “I know it hurts a little, but it won’t quit un-; til you quit what you are doing”. Elliott made her way back one half mile to a snow field, stopped and requested a toboggan. After one half hour, a toboggan arrived and she was taken to a warming hut. The instructor had been instructed to check and if the injury prevented a student from skiing any further, the instructor was to notify the ski patrol. If there was any doubt as to the injury, the instruct tor was to get a toboggan. We believe this evidence is sufficient 't'o create an issue of fact, (1) whether Taos Ski Valley was negligent in failing to ext ercise ordinary care toward Elliott after she fell arid’ stated she could not ski anymore, and (2) whether Elliott was contributorily negligent in attempting to walk to the lodge. There was Sufficient Proof to Submit the Issue of Aggravation of the Injury' tb the Jury. 1  Elliott does not claim damages' for the original injury, the fracture of the left femur. Her damage claim is for aggravation of this injury. Dr. Earl McBride of Oklahoma City, a long recognized authority in orthopedic surgery, testified that Elliott did have additional damage to the bone, other than that of the initial injury which madq her case worse; that if she had immediately been taken off her feet, the circulation might have had a chance to take care of itself; that the pressure and irritation, th'e twisting and abnormal forces placed ort the hip as a result of walking down the mountain, and bearing weight after the bone was fractured, in his opinion, as a reasonable medical probability, resulted in aggravation by fifty per cent of her total injury because it gave Elliott a permanent limp and may result in the loss of the head of that bone in the future. This is sufficient evidence to create an issue of fact on aggravated injury and the extent thereof. Hebenstreit v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 65 N.M. 301, 336 P.2d 1057 (1959); Morris v. Rogers, 80 N.M. 389, 456 P.2d 863 (1969); despite any claim of conflict in the doctor’s testimony on cross-examination; Alvillar v. Hatfield, 82 N.M. 565, 484 P.2d 1275 (Ct.App.1971).  Taos Ski Valley also contends that the medical testimony is inherently improbable from a factual standpoint and it must be disregarded under the “physical facts and conditions” doctrine of Ortega v. Koury, 55 N.M. 142, 227 P.2d 941 (1951). We see no basis for the application of this rule to the facts of the instant case. We believe that the doctor’s testimony and opinion has a factual basis sufficient to create an issue of fact for the jury. Assumption of Risk as a Defense on Retrial.  Taos Ski Valley raised the defense of assumption of risk. We cannot determine whether the directed verdict included this defense. However, since this case must be tried over, the defense is controlled by Williamson v. Smith, 83 N.M. 336, 491 P.2d 1147 (1971). The judgment is reversed and Elliott is granted a new trial. It is so ordered. WOOD, C. J., concurs. COWAN, J., dissents.