Frankie R. Christy v. Rottinghaus Company, Inc., d/b/a Subway, Rottinghaus Real Estate, LLC
A16-946
| Minn. Ct. App. | Dec 27, 2016Background
- Appellant Christy sued Rottinghaus, owner of a Subway restaurant in Austin, for injuries from a January 11, 2009 slip on a sidewalk at the Subway driveway intersection.
- Christy testified the weather was very cold with a deep wind chill, no precipitation that day, and the fall occurred around 12:30 p.m. while crossing the driveway; she did not recall vehicles in the lot.
- Christy later claimed the sidewalk condition involved snow/ice with grease from vehicle traffic, but she did not report the incident until 2015 and alleged no prior notice.
- Rottinghaus moved for summary judgment in November 2015; Christy responded in February 2016 with affidavits alleging extraordinary use and a snow/ice condition caused by vehicle traffic.
- The district court granted summary judgment, dismissing Christy’s claim with prejudice, and excluded an accident-reconstruction affidavit as speculative.
- The court held Rottinghaus owed no duty absent extraordinary use or artificial conditions, and there was no genuine issue of material fact to create liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Rottinghaus owe a duty to Christy given lack of extraordinary use? | Christy contends extraordinary use created a duty due to driveway traffic and sidewalk condition. | Rottinghaus argues no duty unless extraordinary use or artificial condition is shown. | No duty absent extraordinary use; summary judgment proper. |
| Was there a genuine issue of material fact about extraordinary use of the sidewalk? | Christy asserted high vehicle traffic and grease/snow accumulation created extraordinary use. | Rottinghaus contends evidence fails to prove extraordinary use; normal traffic does not suffice. | No genuine issue; ordinary traffic not extraordinary use. |
| Was the accident-reconstruction expert affidavit properly disregarded as speculative? | Affidavits supported the theory of dangerous conditions from traffic in cold weather. | Affidavits were speculative and contradicted by record evidence; cannot establish duty. | Affidavits excluded; insufficient to create duty or a factual issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graalum v. Radisson Ramp, Inc., 245 Minn. 54 (1955) (extraordinary use when sidewalk must accommodate unusual traffic or conditions)
- McDonough v. City of St. Paul, 179 Minn. 553 (1930) (liability not imposed for natural accumulations of ice and snow)
- Sternitzke v. Donahue's Jewelers, 249 Minn. 514 (1957) (liability limited for dangers from natural conditions)
- Olson v. City of St. James, 380 N.W.2d 555 (1986) (owner not liable for natural sidewalk hazards absent artificial conditions)
- Doe 169 v. Brandon, 845 N.W.2d 174 (2014) (duty element requires proof of breach and causation)
- Johnson v. Lorraine Park Apts., Inc., 268 Minn. 273 (1964) (circumstantial evidence must support a conclusion; not mere speculation)
- Camfield Tires, Inc. v. Michelin Tire Corp., 719 F.2d 1361 (8th Cir. 1983) (limits of using contradictory affidavits to create issues of fact)
- Banbury v. Omnitrition Int’l Inc., 533 N.W.2d 876 (Minn. App. 1995) (self-serving affidavits do not create genuine issues)
- DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60 (Minn. 1997) (summary judgment standard and burden-shifting)
- Kellogg v. Finnegan, 823 N.W.2d 454 (Minn. App. 2012) (elements of negligence and proof required for summary judgment)