VALANCE V. VI-DOUG, INCORPORATED 50 P.3d 697 (2002) CASE BRIEF

VALANCE V. VI-DOUG, INCORPORATED

50 P.3d 697 (2002)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Valance (P) appealed a summary judgment for Doug (D) in P's action alleging negligence in failing to provide an entry reasonably safe from the wind, and in posting a sign with instructing to hold the door tightly.

FACTS: Miles, age seventy-five, was opening the front door at D's restaurant when the wind forcefully caught the door. A sign posted on the door instructed: 'Please Hold Door Tight Due to Wind.' Miles claimed she did what the sign instructed her to do. The force of the wind on the door caused her to fall onto the concrete walkway, breaking her hip. P sued D alleging that D's failed to provide a reasonably safe entryway for its patrons. D moved for summary judgment; it does not owe a duty to protect its patrons from the effects of natural accumulations of snow and ice on its premises, it does not owe a duty to protect them from the effects of naturally occurring wind on its premises. P disputed the application of the 'open-and-obvious-danger' exception in the context of wind. P contends the sign instructing patrons to tightly hold the door violated D's duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition because if heeded by a patron, it created a hazardous condition. The district court ruled that the open-and-obvious-danger exception applies to naturally occurring forces of wind just as it does to natural accumulations of snow and ice. It determined reasonable minds could not differ that D did not violate its duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition for its patrons by placing the sign as worded on the restaurant's front door. P appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner