Valance v. VI-Doug, Inc.
2002 WY 113, 50 P.3d 697, 2002 Wyo. LEXIS 119 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While premises owners generally owe no duty to protect invitees from open and obvious dangers arising from naturally occurring forces like wind, an owner may incur a duty or create a triable issue of fact regarding negligence if their affirmative actions, such as posting a sign with specific instructions, create or aggravate a hazardous condition or increase the risk of harm to patrons.
Facts:
- On March 5, 1999, Jeanne Miles, a 75-year-old woman, arrived at the Village Inn Restaurant in Douglas, Wyoming, operated by VI-Doug, Inc.
- It was a very windy day when Mrs. Miles approached the restaurant's front door.
- A sign was posted on the door instructing patrons: "Please Hold Door Tight Due to Wind."
- Mrs. Miles testified that she followed the sign's directions and held on tightly to the door as she opened it.
- As Mrs. Miles opened the door, a strong gust of wind caught it forcefully, causing her to fall onto the concrete walkway.
- Mrs. Miles suffered a broken hip requiring surgery as a result of her fall.
- The owner of VI-Doug testified that another woman was slightly injured under very similar circumstances three or four months prior to Mrs. Miles' accident.
- Subsequent to the first incident but before Mrs. Miles' injury, VI-Doug sought bids to construct an effective windbreak, although it was not constructed until after Mrs. Miles was injured.
Procedural Posture:
- Jeanne Miles (later Catherine A. Valance, personal representative of her estate) sued VI-Doug, Incorporated in the district court for personal injuries, alleging negligence in failing to provide a reasonably safe entryway.
- VI-Doug, Incorporated moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty to protect Mrs. Miles from naturally occurring wind and that its sign did not violate any duty.
- On October 16, 2000, the district court granted VI-Doug's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the open-and-obvious-danger exception applied to wind and that no reasonable minds could differ that the sign did not violate VI-Doug's duty.
- Catherine A. Valance, as personal representative for the Estate of Jeanne V. Miles, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Wyoming Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does the open-and-obvious-danger exception, which limits a premises owner's duty to protect invitees from natural accumulations of snow and ice, also apply to naturally occurring forces of wind? 2. Can a premises owner's placement of a sign on a door instructing patrons to take specific action create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the owner maintained the premises in a reasonably safe condition, thereby precluding summary judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Kite, Justice
Yes, the open-and-obvious-danger exception applies to naturally occurring forces of wind, just as it does to natural accumulations of snow and ice, meaning a proprietor generally does not owe a duty to protect invitees from such natural conditions. However, yes, genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the sign violated VI-Doug's duty to maintain the restaurant's premises in a reasonably safe condition for its patrons, thus reversing summary judgment on that specific point. The court reasoned that the policies underlying the natural accumulation and open-and-obvious-danger rules (that such dangers are universally known, prevention is difficult, and plaintiffs are in a better position to guard against them) apply equally to wind, particularly in Wyoming. Therefore, a proprietor generally has no duty to prevent the natural consequences of wind unless they create or aggravate the condition. However, a proprietor's affirmative action, such as placing a sign with specific instructions, can alter this situation and give rise to a duty of care, or at least a question for the jury regarding whether the premises were maintained in a reasonably safe condition. The court applied the principle that one who voluntarily assumes a duty must perform it with reasonable care, and may be liable if their failure to exercise reasonable care increases the risk of harm or if harm is suffered due to reliance on the undertaking. The question of whether the sign created a hazardous condition or increased the risk of injury by directing specific action was a question of basic fact for the trier of fact, not appropriate for summary judgment.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Spangler, District Judge (Retired)
Yes, summary judgment should be reversed. However, no, the issue on remand should not be whether VI-Doug is liable for gratuitously posting an allegedly unsafe warning. Justice Spangler concurred in the reversal of summary judgment but dissented regarding the specific issue framed for remand. He argued that the open-and-obvious-danger rule and the natural accumulation of ice and snow rule are contrary to Wyoming's comparative negligence law because they bar recovery based on plaintiff's potential negligence without comparing the negligence of the parties. He contended these rules are about negligence, not duty, and that the general duty of a possessor of land to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition is clear. These rules, he asserted, discourage property owners from mitigating dangers and lead to irreconcilable decisions. He advocated for abrogating both rules and applying a standard negligence framework where the plaintiff must show an unreasonably dangerous condition known or discoverable by the owner, and the owner failed to take reasonable action to mitigate it.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the open-and-obvious-danger and natural accumulation rules to naturally occurring wind, solidifying the idea that premises owners generally have no duty to protect against such obvious natural forces. However, its most significant impact lies in carving out an important exception: when a proprietor takes an affirmative action, such as posting a warning sign with specific instructions, they may create a new duty or at least a question of fact regarding whether they have made the premises reasonably safe. This suggests that good intentions (like posting a warning) can inadvertently create liability if the warning itself leads to an increased risk of harm, potentially encouraging premises owners to be cautious not just about dangers, but also about the solutions they implement.
