Opinion
Jan. 2, 1974.
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
Charles D. Burg, Albert Cohen, Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Hemminger, McKendree, Vamos & Elliott, P. C., Gary H. Hemminger, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
COYTE, Judge.
Plaintiff brought this action against his landlord to recover damages for personal injuries which he received during a snow-storm, when he slipped and fell in a parking lot owned by defendant. The parking lot in which plaintiff had rented a space was behind the rooming house, also owned by defendant, in which plaintiff was then living. From the judgment entered on a jury verdict for plaintiff, defendant appeals. We affirm.
The sole basis for appeal is defendant's contention that the trial court erred in refusing to give the following tendered instruction:
'You are instructed that a landowner is not under any duty to remove ice and snow from his premises while it is still snowing, but that he is permitted to wait until after any fall of snow and a reasonable time thereafter before removing ice and snow from the premises.' As his authority for giving this instruction, defendant relies on Swenson v. LaShell, 118 Colo. 333, 195 P.2d 385, but that case is not authority for defendant's position. It involved an attempt to impose civil liability by reason of the defendant's failure to remove snow and ice from the sidewalk as required by ordinance and refers to the ordinance requirement. See W. T. Grant Co. v. Casady, 117 Colo. 405, 188 P.2d 881.
Our examination of all of the instructions given reveals that the jury was instructed on all relevant issues. It was properly instructed that the landlord is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to keep the common passageways, approaches, and parking facilities within his control in a reasonably safe condition. The instructions given properly presented for the determination of the jury the issue of whether defendant had, at the time of the fall, used reasonable care in maintaining the parking lot.
The tendered instruction was unnecessary to define the issues for the jury, and the refusal to give it was not error. Atencio v. Torres, 153 Colo. 507, 385 P.2d 659.
Judgment affirmed.
ENOCH and PIERCE, JJ., concur.