Williams v. Crane et al

Filing 61

MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER denying Defendants' Oral Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 11/18/2015. (blh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A
MATTER OF LAW

LAMONT DARWIN WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRACI AND JONI L. CRANE,

Case No. 2:14-CV-241 TS

Defendants.

District Judge Ted Stewart
This matter is before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of
Law. Defendants made their Motion orally at the conclusion of Plaintiff’s case in chief on
November 18, 2015.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a)(1) provides,
If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds
that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find
for the party on that issue, the court may:
(A) resolve the issue against the party; and
(B) grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim or
defense that, under the controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only with a
favorable finding on that issue.
In reviewing a Rule 50 Motion, the Court should review all of the evidence in the
record. 1 However, all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the nonmoving party and the
Court does “not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.” 2 Judgment as a matter
of law is appropriate “only if the evidence points but one way and is susceptible to no reasonable

1

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000).

2

Id.
1

inferences which may support the opposing party’s position.” 3 A judgment as a matter of law is
appropriate “‘[i]f there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis . . . with respect to a claim or
defense . . . under the controlling law.’” 4
In this matter, Plaintiff brings a negligence claim against Defendants. “The essential
elements a party asserting negligence must prove are: (1) a duty of reasonable care owed by the
defendant to plaintiff; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) the causation, both actually and proximately,
of injury; and (4) the suffering of damages by the plaintiff.” 5
Defendants argue that judgment as a matter of law is appropriate in this case because
under Jensen v. Gardner, 6 Plaintiff cannot succeed on his claim if he knowingly encounters a
dangerous condition. In Jensen, the plaintiff filed suit against the landlord of an apartment
complex when she hit her head on a protruding balcony of the complex. The Utah Court of
Appeals found that the balcony was “an open and obvious danger” and that the plaintiff did not
demonstrate that the landlord should have anticipated the harm arising from the balcony. 7 The
court applied the duty of care that possessors of land in Utah owe to invitees upon their property,
which is set forth in sections 343 and 343A of the Second Restatement of Torts. 8
Under these sections, whether Plaintiff knowingly encounters a dangerous condition does
not necessarily excuse Defendants’ liability if Defendants should have anticipated the harm
3

Finley v. United States, 82 F.3d 966, 968 (10th Cir. 1996) (quoting Q.E.R., Inc., v.
Hickerson, 880 F.2d 1178, 1180 (10th Cir. 1989)).
4

Baty v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 172 F.3d 1232, 1241 (10th Cir. 1999) (quoting Harolds
Stores, Inc. v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, 82 F.3d 1533, 1546–47 (10th Cir. 1996)).
5

Williams v. Melby, 699 P.2d 723, 726 (Utah 1986).

6

279 P.3d 844 (Utah Ct. App. 2012).

7

Id. at 846.

8

Id.

2

despite Plaintiff’s knowledge or the obviousness of the condition. 9 Here, Plaintiff presented
sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that Defendants should have
anticipated the harm posed to Plaintiff despite his knowledge and the obviousness of the icy
condition surrounding the mailbox. Therefore, the Court will deny Defendants’ Motion.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law is DENIED.
DATED this 18th day of November, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

Ted Stewart
United States District Judge

9

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A, cmt. f (1965).

3