Opinion
Sept. 28, 1971.
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
Ashen & Fogel, George T. Ashen, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.
Robinson & Henderson, Jack D. Henderson, Denver, for defendant-appellee.
ENOCH, Judge.
This is a negligence case arising out of injuries sustained by plaintiff, Florence Brown, when she fell on defendant's icy front steps. Trial was to a jury. At the conclusion of plaintiff's case, the trial court granted defendant's motion for a directed verdict on the ground that plaintiff had failed to show any negligence on the part of defendant. The issue to be determined is whether there was any evidence of negligence warranting submission of the case to the jury.
Plaintiff was a real estate agent working for a company with which defendant had listed her property for sale. On January 15, 1968, plaintiff made an appointment to show defendant's property to a prospective buyer. Plaintiff walked up the steps to defendant's home that evening and then returned to her car by the same steps to get some material she had left there. While walking back to defendant's house, the plaintiff slipped and fell.
Plaintiff does not contest on appeal the trial court's ruling that defendant had no actual or constructive knowledge of the icy condition. Plaintiff's theory before this court is that the defendant was negligent in not adequately illuminating her front steps. The testimony established that there was a light next to the steps. Defendant testified that the light was on; plaintiff testified that she didn't know whether the light was on, but that she didn't think it was. Plaintiff's strongest testimony on this point was her own 'No' answer to the question, 'Was there a sufficient amount of light to illuminate the steps?'
We find no error in the trial court's granting defendant's motion for a directed verdict. The burden of proof was on plaintiff to establish some negligent act or omission on the part of the defendant which proximately caused her injuries. This she did not do. Placing the most favorable construction on plaintiff's evidence, it cannot be said to establish more than a possibility that defendant's light was not on. There is no evidence in the record that, even if the light were off, that this condition constituted a negligent act or ommission. See Gordon v. Clotsworthy, 127 Colo. 377, 257 P.2d 410.
Judgment affirmed.
DWYER and DUFFORD, JJ., concur.