*1 in favor against the state and be construed set forth own. I-t of' its a formula (cid:127) repre- of IMC. at a it “arrived by which criteria ma- the feed for market value sentative judicial This does not have the had a It is formula invalid. This terial.” power ordinary language emasculate by regulation a criteria this duty to establish of statutes in taxation on order increase hearing. public after industry. power to tax “fines” rests regulatory power Department. decided has opinion majority After it has first determined that “fines” appraising for required are "Regulations value, may appraise have no it market then do “fines” property’,” kind ‘each adopted by taxable value a formula this class: fall' way regulation. is “appraise” the word 72-25-2(A), In § The statute does not define “market follows: as defined value.” It interesting is note .method, deter- means “[A]ppraise” Legislature New Mexico amended the property value taxable mining the Severance Act by defining the Tax “Gross add- [Emphasis property taxation. for potash products.” Value of Section 72—18— 2.1, (Repl.Vol. pt. 2, ed.] N.M.S.A.1953 Supp.). “property” says that (E) 72-25-2 Section phrase Department. Since the property.” adopt failed to “tangible means “Tan regulation, defined. formula is the fines are not tax- “tangible property” felt or be able. is property” gible al corporeal, necessarily is touched, and However, IMC contends that it should personal. real may be either though it pay pursuant a tax on “fines” previous ato Jones, Crosswell, Inc. &D.H. K. used formula the State J. Tax Commis- See (D.C.S.C.1931). 880, 883 C.J.S. F.2d sion. pay Since it desires tax, would Property 5 § conclude that paid. tax should this be to § definitions above apply the we If read: supra, would 72-25-6(A), for determin- specific method Unless prop- 'tangible value ing taxable law, provided erty taxation for regulations adopt shall department tangible determining taxable value CROCKETT, Plaintiff-Appellee, Lee Ella kind each for taxation property state. property [Em- tangible CENTER, INC., ENCINO GARDENS CARE phasis added.] corporation, Defendant-Appellant. deter- method specific There is No. 699.

mining taxable value. Appeals Court of of New Mexico. Are remaining question is: only Dec. 1971. tangible property? kind of “fines” Certiorari Denied Jan. 1972. tangible property. a kind "Fines” are be felt and can They corporeal of their a class They stand

touched. of tan- kind “Each class. mineral

own'—a each class whether property” means

gible minerals, goods vegetables, realty,

called members between is doubt etc. meaning kind of “each court as Therefore, phrase should property.”

4H Rueckhaus, Albuquerque, for Michael M. defendant-appellant. Singer, Albuquerque,

Robert N. plaintiff-appellee.

OPINION COWAN, judge. slip appeals in and fall

Defendant favor of judgment entered in case from a following trial before (1) defendant Defendant asserts: court. law; Mexico negligent under New was not concluding trial court erred (2) and was the risk plaintiff did not assume contributorily negligent; (3) not preponderance failed to show aggravated a fall that the condition; (4) defendant preexisting introducing testi- prevented from mony a witness. issues on

Although the four we decide merits, dis- appeal could be we note Defendant rule violations. missed sup- questions whether fact. ports trial court’s bearing all evidence substance in defendant’s proposition is stated challenged brief, directly findings are inferentially findings are only two proceedings. challenged in the statement then, argued pared carrying issue is the fourth with While “points her, re hands both in front brief, included left the respectively 21-2-1(15) and walked § on”. See lied room area to 16(b) N.M.S.A. subparagraphs into the *3 Dabau, 78 hall. This was the 4); Nance same route she had (Repl.Vol. fol- 1953 Cooper going lowed the 250, (1967); 747 to her 430 P.2d kitchen. On first 398, step through 423 P. the Mexico, 77 N.M. door and into hall the of New Bank Bauman, she slipped injuring 76 N. and Michael v. (1966) 2d herself. (1966). P.2d 888 M. preparation The applied had been “right up and, the the trial door” judgment although plaintiff to the the affirm We had been stripping aware of oper- the wax court. ation on hall, one thought side of the govern review which our The rules by the side which approached the findings in Cave v. are stated court’s the kitchen open. would still be At the time Cave, (1970): 474 P.2d she fell there were warning signs no the in “ by supported . .If . area approached as she leading the door question not them. we will into the hall. be in the evidence is to viewed . . . plaintiff as a business in- The status of most favorable to the success- aspect the disputed. is not vitee of the defendant parties. trial is to deter- The court ful by a the owed rule to duties relative credibility reason- weight. and All mine possessor invitees is set of land to his indulged in to able are to be inferences Noeding, forth in Mozert v. made; and support the evidence (1966). disregard- contrary to the are inferences ”. ed. .. situation in this peculiar factual distinguishes it the case from other by light, in this and as found the Viewed jurisdiction. in and fall cases decided court, that on March the evidence is areaway was in condition Here an one plaintiff employed the as a was upon departure. upon entry in another and Green, duty by Eunice private nurse one at changed warning con- was no patient residing premises the a at time that open and obvious to and dition was approximately by defendant. At owned dining entering hall the room one the from plaintiff evening proceeded in the 5 :15 the area. tray the a of food to kitchen area to obtain impressed language We with patient’s her went for dinner. As she Freeborn, Union News Co. v. a down a hall to 144 N.E. 595 Ohio St. dining room and thus to the plaintiff a restaurant There the entered being noted that some sort of work was inquire depot near about train. Aft- a on left two-thirds of the done requested obtaining er information she employees floor. defendant’s One doing so recrossed the restaurant and while placing preparation on the floor was -was occasioned and fell. The fall wax, strip operation an off floor, by soapy there water on extremely slippery. the floor causes to be by a workman after she crossed room Normally this would not be done in the and before and of which she returned dining outside room kitchen hall knowledge. affirming plaintiff had but, during the dinner hour unex- plaintiff, judgment the Ohio Su- reason, plained this occasion it was. on preme Court stated: right the-hallway one-third “ plaintiff indicated, being worked as the turned to . . As . heretofore right supports to enter room door. the record the claim approximately dangerous kitchen was in the that condition described being danger, pre- while the a new be- minutes created 41» ence and floor the defendant time crossed calls none to our tween return, attention. recrossing the place. The same at the restaurant point three, defendant’s there As supported claim asserted testimony was medical plaintiff’s neglig- one was therefore condition accident; was caused placing part of defendant ence aggravated preexisting back condi situation new before fall; tion fall would be knowledge had no danger, of which she competent producing injury. cause of the attempt was made which no and of personal As in injury actions, most apprise principle involved her. medical conflicting, evidence was least if, un- applicable, than that no different part, but a determination is for the trier *4 circumstances, flight the same der of fact and not for this court. Cave v. steps from the course had been removed Cave, supra. take, between the was directed By point, defendant’s fourth an steps her passed time she over one, point addendum to defendant com attempted or return the same return ” plains that prevented it was from introduc way. . . ing testimony existing of the conditions liability applicable The same rule immediately after the accident because here, compari- “flight steps” as is the defense witness was unavailable because Greyhound Corpo- also son. See Atlantic illness. The record discloses more than Newton, 131 F.2d (4th ration v. Cir. ample during time which the defendant 1942) Hughes Enterprises, v. Anchor could deposition have obtained the of this S.E.2d 63 A.L.R.2d N.C. court, witness and the trial in its order Hughes, when overruling defendant’s motion a vaca entered restaurant and to booth walked tion setting of the shortly trial, before served, the en- where she was floor of the granted permission defendant take dry trance area and aisle was and safe. witness’ deposition during or after trial. restaurant, While was in defendant granting or denying of a motion for employee, its had created the un- continuance rests in the discretion safe condition that caused her to trial court and will not be interfered with again fall when she undertook to use except for abuse. findWe none. Tenorio passageways. identical Hughes applied the Nolen, (Ct. apply rule that we here. App.1969). finding negligence Finding error, judg- we affirm the part being supported by of the defendant ment. point its one is with It is so ordered. out merit. two, purportedly point Defendant’s WOOD, J.,C. concurs. plain conclusion attacking the court’s the risk did not assume tiff SUTIN, Judge (dissenting). contributorily negligent, is also without respectfully dissent. record merit. There is no evidence The defendant challenged the court’s knew, or should have 4, 6, 7, of fact 8 and 9 Nos. known, stay during her which as read follows: placed por had been wax remover slipped and fell on 4. That Plaintiff areaway by which she entered of the tion upon stepping into wax remover kitchen area. The dining room and dining room from the area of hall assumption of the risk is not doctrine of premises Defend- and kitchen on the contributory applicable. On the issue of extremely ant, which remover infer- wax negligence evidence or we find no minutes, tile of food applied to the fifteen obtained when slippery body carried front of premises. which she on Defendant’s waist, began to walk even with placed remover so the wax That 6. to Mrs. room. could not'see She Green’s corporation employee of defendant feet, at her but down she could see out. slipped. the time Plaintiff invisible step first she took out had been signs barriers That no 7. hallway, and fell. room into the door- employee near .placed such “preparation” After she she noticed a plain- hall where way into the leading “liquid of some sort” or sub- “some' the dan- persons of slipped warn tiff right up stance door.” She did floor. gerous condition (cid:127) preparation not see “where else the upon wax remover That 8. fell,” in the hall at the time or!.at (she) been fell had plaintiff slipped and any other time. did not what She know the door from front the substance was. did not see area and kitchen dining room machine. man who -been with employee defendant got the machine if asked cut and she corporation. “no,” said and that was all con- procedure normal That it was not 9. versation. removal employees to conduct wax *5 After “preparation” the was on hallways defendant operations in the her uniform. She off the- uniform took during there- dinner hours corporation put it towels under all washed at, operations especially as wax removal - get could off uniform. later She passers- to and hazardous dangerous told “slipped doctor on waxed .floor by. [Emphasis added.] against wall, and fell the slid down a wall carefully the record. reviewed have and went to a sitting position.” But she plaintiff to favorable The evidence most testified stepped that as she the out'-on. following: the shows floor, she didn’t see the wax. 1969, plaintiff was em- March On fall, the Care after her minutes Fifteen Green, patient at ployed one Eunice supervisor arrived. maintenance Center’s had Center. been defendant’s Care She plaintiff, cross-examination On and this employed prior thereto 15 months arrival, that, supervisor’s on disclosed n stripping first time wax was done was the - employee, in the -was Vargas, an Mr. m., plain- p. the floor. At about 5:15 process stripping the floor wax. Just doorway hallway to tiff down walked on it. hallway of the had one side wax room, dining then led dry. The other side was dining the kitchen room into testimony that when Expert established for Mrs. to obtain food Green. on a tile wax emulsion is used floor crepe sole nurse’s shoes. wore rubber She removal, slippery and dan- the floor or some- noticed was either wax She there gerous. thing being applied of the to two-thirds put defendant The trial court found hallway glossy and one-third which was invisible, on its slippery remover wax hallway was not of the was left out and doorway leading into tile floor near the room, dining glossy. To enter slipped and fell. plaintiff the hall where part down the one-third walked any inferences There is no nor About 30 glossy. that was not therefrom, findings. There support to these beyond to the entrance to 40 feet tile is no evidence that floor was room, a wax remover she saw invisible, “preparation” or standing where machine with a man “preparation,” “liquid” or the '“sub- being machine located. No work an emulsion or door was stance” done as she kitchen. walked dangerous created a wax remover which ten and remained in kitchen between condition, proc- that the defendant was or Shop Sanchez Foods, Rite 82 N.M. essing floor at or near the door dur- P.2d 72 (Ct.App.1971) Garcia v. Bar Super fifteen minutes ber’s ing ten or Markets, Inc., 81 N.M. or that defendant knew 463 P.2d 516 (Ct.App.1969); Mahoney v. in front of “preparation” being on the floor C. Penney Company, J. plaintiff’s slip and prior 663 (1962); Ross, Edwards v. any evi- fall. is a total absence 380 P.2d 188 (1963). “prep- by whom dence to show how or Ross, Edwards supra, appears to be just the door. outside aration” was a “wax” case. any negligence proof There is act fell on the floor of defendant’s business. maintaining period floor over falling After she noticed the floor. was time, presence any notice of the discolored, yellowish and slick and felt foreign on the substance damp to her touch. Plaintiff’s verdict was door, of a front of the existence allowed to stand because she introduced pattern messy condition or of conduct. tending prove that defendant carefully re- brief been Plaintiff’s has improperly maintained the floor over any There is no reference evi- viewed. period considerable of time. This fact contrary to dence or inferences therefrom does appear present case. what heretofore mentioned. has been Garcia, supra the court said: Findings of fact without some substan- presence The mere slip- of a slick or support cannot be tial them pery spot on a floor does not in and Kahn, 49 appeal. sustained on DeBaca v. of itself negligence establish condition arise temporarily any any author- Plaintiff failed to cite has' place of business. Nor [Cases cited]. ity “slip judg- to sustain fall” proof does slippery of a floor without *6 ment under the in this case. She give more rise to an inference that the solely Noeding, on Mozert v. 76 relies proprietor knowledge of the condi- (1966), N.M. P.2d 364 415 tion. n majority “slip not a and fall” case. The It would purpose no useful serve opinion rely any Mexico does not New repeat again the various rules which de- “slip and fall” case. “slip liability termine and fall” on floors every slip fall case I have reviewed public premises. Plaintiff’s evidence any to determine whether New Mexico does not come any within rule. This case plaintiff’s supports position. one of them. separate was tried on hearings: two One Kahn, supra; found none. DeBaca v. See May 7, 1970, and the other on Novem- 79, 304 P.2d Hogan, Barrans v. 24, 1970, ber apart. over six months Per- Foods, Shop 880 (1956); Rite v. Kitts haps the evidence fresh (1958); N.M. 323 William 64 P.2d 282 trial court’s mind after the second hear- Foods, Piggly Shop Wiggly son v. Rite ing. This have led Inc., (Ct.App 458 843 N.M. P.2d 80 adopt plaintiff’s requested findings of Foods, Inc., Shop .1969); 72 Rite Jimenez fact. (1963) Lewis N.M. P.2d Inc., Markets, Supreme Super changes Until Barber’s Court Spon cases, “slip (1963); P.2d 470 Barakos v. rule and fall” we should duris, (1958); follow the policy. established