Savory v. Hensick case brief
143 S.W. 3d 712
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
CASE SYNOPSIS: Plaintiffs,
an injured contractor and his wife, filed a premises liability action
against defendant homeowners to recover damages plaintiffs suffered
when the contractor stepped on the homeowners' dog at the base of the
ladder, and fell, injuring himself. The Circuit Court of Jefferson
County, Missouri, entered judgment in accord with the jury's verdict
in plaintiffs' favor against one of the homeowners, who
appealed.
FACTS: The injured contractor entered into an agreement to build a deck for the homeowners. They agreed to keep the dogs inside the home, or tied up, while he and his crew were present. On the final day of work, as the contractor stepped down from the ladder, he stepped on one of the dog's paws and heard a loud yelp. The paw moved, and the contractor lost his balance, twisted, and fell to the ground on his hip. He and his wife sued the homeowners for negligence. Both parties agreed that the contractor was an invitee. The trial court properly entered judgment for plaintiffs. The evidence was sufficient to submit to the jury the question of whether the dogs made the yard foreseeably dangerous. There was also substantial evidence that the dogs created a foreseeable risk of harm if they were loose while the contractor and his crew were working. The trial court did not err in denying the homeowners' motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
CONCLUSION: The judgment was affirmed.
FACTS: The injured contractor entered into an agreement to build a deck for the homeowners. They agreed to keep the dogs inside the home, or tied up, while he and his crew were present. On the final day of work, as the contractor stepped down from the ladder, he stepped on one of the dog's paws and heard a loud yelp. The paw moved, and the contractor lost his balance, twisted, and fell to the ground on his hip. He and his wife sued the homeowners for negligence. Both parties agreed that the contractor was an invitee. The trial court properly entered judgment for plaintiffs. The evidence was sufficient to submit to the jury the question of whether the dogs made the yard foreseeably dangerous. There was also substantial evidence that the dogs created a foreseeable risk of harm if they were loose while the contractor and his crew were working. The trial court did not err in denying the homeowners' motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
CONCLUSION: The judgment was affirmed.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment