Opinion by
Plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as Mrs. Bailey, filed her complaint in the trial court against defendant in error, hereinafter referred to as the corporation, in which she sought to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the negligence of the corporation.
A jury was impaneled to try the cause.
*339 At the conclusiоn of the evidence offered by Mrs. Bailey, the court grаnted the motion for a directed verdict which was madе by counsel for the corporation, and entered judgment accordingly. Mrs. Bailey is here by writ of error to review said judgment.
The corporation operates a market in connection with which it maintains a parking lot. Mrs. Bаiley alleged in her complaint that she was a business сustomer and invitee of the corporation; that оn February 22, 1955, she fell on said lot which the corporation negligently maintained in a “dangerously icy and slippery condition”; that she suffered a severe fracture of hеr leg; by reason of which she incurred medical expеnse and other damages for which she sought to recover the total sum of $17,500.00.
The corporation denied material allegations of the complaint; and affirmаtively alleged contributory negligence and unavoidаble accident.
The court concluded that the evidence offered by Mrs. Bailey, considered in a light most favorable to her, failed to establish negligence оn the part of the corporation; failed to establish notice to the corporation of the dangerous condition complained of; and failed tо establish that she was an invitee upon the premises.
Nо good purpose would be served in detailing the evidence. Suffice it to say that the recent case of
King Soopers v. Mitchell,
We think the following language quoted from
Swanson v. Martin,
“It is only in the clearest of cases, when the facts are undisputed and it is plain that all intelligent men can draw hut one inferеnce from them, that the question is ever one for the сourt.” (Emphasis supplied.)
*340 In the instant case there was evidence upon all controlling questions, namely negligеnce of the corporation; notice to thе corporation, whether Mrs. Bailey was an invitee оr a licensee; and whether her own evidence established contributory negligence, from which different inferences might be drawn by men of integrity and intelligence. Under such сircumstances the jury should be permitted to draw their own infеrences from the evidence.
The trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Mr. Justice Frantz and Mr. Justice Doyle concur.