*1 days, to remit that amount within seventeen rest of will be affirmed. the canse must Otherwise he for a new trial. remanded
Harris, C. J., JoNes, J., dissent. AND L. WEBB v. Tom PEARSON Jr. Callie et al Opinion delivered appellant.
Lewis D. J ones J ohn Butt, E. Walter B. Cox, Putnam, Davis Bassett appellees. Charles W. Atkinson, for Justice. Callie Webb, L. Ward, Paul stepped grease spot when she board walkway. along ran the west side of, building was attached to, Trusts Guy (also Tom Pearson Jr. Pinkerton lessees) operate ap- “Razorback Lanes” —all complaint alleging, in essence, filed *2 pub- grease, patch to a slipped of
that: she injuries; causing that de- severe lic sidewalk, complete sidewalk, are being of the fendants, grease negligence, (a) allowing to guilty viz, of allowing (b) public to on be a reasonable sidewalk more than remain on the allowing (c) to be situation time, and con- wanton and malicious “wilful, created amounts to particularly general public, more toward the duct prayer plaintiff”. $28,000.- for The was toward the complaint appellees entered To the above Summary Judg- a Motion for a and then filed denial, ment. presented judge on af- was the trial
The matter to findings granting as he made and, same, fidavits (1) or an in- not a follows: walkway (2) The but was mere vitee, licensee; owed Sonneman Trusts duty wilful and than to be free of other (3) the Razorback misconduct; wanton Since appellant no other it Lanes was lessee owed anything cause to than exercise due care to do was dis- her after her was no material held there covered. trial court then The dismissed Order, resolved, and, to be of fact prose- complaint. now From Order such the cutes this appeal. previous testimony, as
A review of the findings convinces us that Court, decisions of this and the court must the trial affirmed. decisions testimony pertinent The essence month before about a Mr. Sonneman asked is: She park permission of his build- the rear accident ing, paid granted, orally and that she it using public nothing; has been the sidewalk years. undisputed testimony The .of is: building, located private entirely property now and is not and never public walkway. has been a undisputed portion
It is clear, rec- private injured, ord,- that when being and, true, Sonneman Trusts Knight was a licensee. In the v. Farmers’ Mer- Company, chants’ Gin
rule stated in these words: “In all of our decisions on the —and many are have adhered the rule that one —we *3 upon goes the of another aas mere trespasser
licensee
inis
the same
attitude as
so
far as concerns the
which the owner owes him
protection;
for his
that he takes
license with
the
its
perils,
concomitant
and
the
that
owner owes
no
protection except
duty of
to do no act
cause his
injury
his
after
there is discovered.”
quotation
copied
approved
in
above
Gar-
Light Company,
rett v.
Power &
Arkansas
In this case there no nor evidence even con any tention that because of wilful negligence part ap or wanton on the either Railway In St. Louis Southwestern Cato Com pany, (p. 233), ap Ark. following pertinent 2dW. pears statement:
“'Whether he be called a or licensee, applies, same rule of law and that is that duty owing wilfully wantonly him injure ordinary him and to exercise care under the circumstances to avoid him after discover- peril.” ing by course,
There is, of contention here that appellee either, saw her on before she was injured.
Affirmed. J., concurs.
F0GLEMAN, concurring. A. I concur in Justice, Fogleman, John by the-majority tiie result reached majority rules law appellees liability appellant’s injury if suffered were property. agree, on their I do not before record undisputed us, that it fact that when in- jured, As- Sonneman. suming public property that was on at the injury, of her time find no or as- however, by appellant appellees sertion liable that would make alleged appellees to her. plete were com- negligent of the sidewalk were allow- pres- deposit ing a materials to warning, on the walk and there, ent to remain without longer than a asserted reasonable time. keeping care in was breach of reasonable maintaining a for the clear and sidewalk unobstructed public. travelling opposing In the motion summary judgment, appellant’s affidavit made no men- appellees any tion of affirmative statement Nor is there condition. *4 placed knew of the them on the barrels, condi- it stated condition which existed. Nor is justify period of time a sufficient tion existed had presence knew an inference appel- foreign fact, matter of As a matter. Substance not see she testified that did lant that after stated fell. before she on the sidewalk liquid greasy on the sidewalk she discovered barrels seeped some trash bottom of had which on the walk. by this summary judgment affirmed been has
A Epps strikingly Remmel, case. similar court allegations In addition 2d 141. plain parallel here, the virtually those city tiff-appellant on an there relied ordinance required tlie owner to maintain repair the sidewalk. recognized "While court there could he liability if the defendant-appellee had af- firmatively done something
or hazardous the court found that condition, there was no such Furthermore, it was held that case. even a violation of the ordinance did not owner to liability bodily harm to one using the side- walk. Since no affirmative of appellees is suggested record, would affirm the authority
of the above case.
SUMMERS APPLIANCE CO. v. GEORGE’S et al
GAS COMPANY, INC. et al Opinion delivered