McClure v. Sunshine Furniture
2012 OK CIV APP 67
Okla. Civ. App.2012Background
- McClure injured when a chair box fell from Devitt's pickup after Sunshine employees loaded and secured furniture in the bed; rainstorm contributed to the hazard.
- Sunshine employees loaded the bookcases, placed chairs on top, and bound the load with rope or twine; Devitt transported the load and later noticed the chairs fell off.
- Sunshine moved for summary judgment arguing no duty and no breach; McClure admitted some facts but contested others and claimed possible inferences of breach.
- Trial court granted summary judgment; later denied reconsideration; McClure appealed under Rule 1.36.
- Court holds Sunshine has a duty to motorists in the loading zone and breach may be proved by circumstantial evidence, reversing and remanding for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Sunshine owe a duty to protect motorists from improper loading? | McClure argues foreseeability creates a duty to motorists. | Sunshine argues no duty absent direct relation or evidence of breach. | Yes, Sunshine has a duty to motorists in the zone of risk. |
| May breach of duty be shown by circumstantial evidence in summary judgment? | McClure may prove breach by inference from surrounding circumstances. | Sunshine asserts no direct evidence of breach; res ipsa not applicable. | Yes; circumstantial evidence may establish breach; summary judgment improper. |
| Can breach be proven without res ipsa loquitur? | McClure relies on circumstantial evidence in lieu of res ipsa loquitur. | Sunshine contends res ipsa loquitur not required or applicable. | Yes; circumstantial evidence alone can support breach without res ipsa. |
| Does the record show a triable issue on whether Sunshine breached its duty? | McClure demonstrates Sunshine employees had loading discretion and binding responsibility. | Sunshine asserts lack of direct evidence of duty breach. | Yes; evidence supports an issue of fact on breach; summary judgment reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wofford v. Eastern State Hospital, 1990 OK 77 (Okla. 1990) (duty based on foreseeability and zone of risk)
- Union Bank of Tucson v. Griffin, 771 P.2d 219 (Okla. 1989) (duty determined by relationship and general undertakings)
- Nye v. Cox, 440 P.2d 683 (Okla. 1968) (duty arises to prevent injury to foreseeable victims)
- Towery v. Guffey, 358 P.2d 812 (Okla. 1960) (negligence may be inferred from circumstances in negligence cases)
- Greyhound Corp. v. Gonzales De Aviles, 391 P.2d 273 (Okla. 1963) (inference of negligence must be more probable than not; not mere conjecture)
- Dumas v. Wagoner, 304 P.2d 991 (Okla. 1956) (circumstantial proof sufficient to submit issue to jury)
- Covington Coal Prods. Co. v. Stogner, 72 P.2d 491 (Okla. 1937) (place/manner of injury may be shown by circumstantial evidence)
- National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Elliott, 298 P.2d 448 (Okla. 1956) (res ipsa loquitur is evidentiary, not substantive; exclusive control not required here)