Court Opinion

ID: 9568835
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:07:54.319188+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:09:47.615759
License: Public Domain

TUCKETT, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent. In the trial below the matter having been submitted to the jury upon conflicting evidence and the jury having found in favor of the plaintiff, I am of the opinion that the verdict should stand.
It is conceded that the plaintiff was a business visitor upon the premises of the defendant, he having gone there to purchase a truckload of coal. The defendant was under a duty to not only refrain from any acts of negligence which might endanger the plaintiff, but also to keep its premises in a reasonably safe condition.
The trial judge submitted two grounds of negligence on the part of the defendant to the jury, namely, whether the defendant was negligent in failing to clear the snow from the anchor or to give warning of its presence; and whether the defendant failed to direct the plaintiff on a course which could be traveled with reasonable safety. The trial court also submitted to the jury the issue of whether or not the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in the operation of his vehicle. The defendant did not object to the instructions as given by the court.
I am convinced from a review of the record that there was a genuine issue of fact to be determined by the jury, and the jury’s determination should not be interfered with here. I would sustain the verdict and the decision of the court below.