Opinion
April 14, 1970
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
Moyers & Dunlap, Robert Dunlap, Colorado Springs, for plaintiff in error.
Rector, Kane & Donley, Leo W. Rector, Jerry Donley, Colorado Springs, for defendant in error.
DWYER, Judge.
This case was originally filed in the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado, and was subsequently transferred to the Court of Appeals under authority vested in the Supreme Court.
The parties in this action appear here in the same order as in the trial court and will be referred to as plaintiff and defendant.
Plaintiff brought this action against defendant to recover damages for personal injuries suffered in a fall in the lobby of defendant's building. A jury trial resulted in a verdict for the defendant.
Plaintiff contends here that the court erred in submitting the issue of contributory negligence to the jury, and that the court erred in denying her motion for a directed verdict in her favor on the issue of negligence.
Plaintiff's evidence was that on the day of her fall it had been raining very hard for about two hours, that she entered the defendant's building to keep an appointment with her doctor who had his office there, that there was water on the lobby floor which had dripped from the raincoats and umbrellas of people who had come in from outside, and that she slipped and fell in the lobby while walking to the elevator.
The plaintiff contends that there was no evidence of contributory negligence because no one except the plaintiff herself testified as to plaintiff's conduct. However, there was evidence that the water on the floor was obvious. There was also evidence that there were only spots of water on the floor which the plaintiff could have avoided by maintaining a proper lookout. It can be legitimately inferred from the evidence that the plaintiff's own negligence was the proximate cause of her fall. The issue of plaintiff's contributory negligence was properly submitted to the jury. Denver Dry Goods Company v. Gettman, Colo., 448 P.2d 954; King Soopers, Inc. v. Mitchell, 140 Colo. 119, 342 P.2d 1006.
Plaintiff's second argument is that the trial court erred in denying plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict in her favor on the issue of defendant's negligence. The evidence in this case, viewed most favorably to the plaintiff, barely establishes a prima facie case. She has no basis to complain that this issue of fact was submitted to the jury.
Judgment affirmed.
COYTE and DUFFORD, JJ., concur.