AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Plaintiff alleged she fell down icy apartment stairs on December 27, 2006, sustaining injuries. She claimed the Defendants failed to remove snow and ice from the stairs, leading to her fall. The Defendants countered, arguing there had been no snowfall in Albuquerque for over a week prior to the alleged incident, suggesting the stairs could not have been icy as claimed by the Plaintiff.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the Defendants were negligent in failing to clear the stairs of ice and snow and in failing to warn of the hazardous condition, leading to her fall and subsequent injuries. She later contended that she might have been mistaken about the exact date of the accident, citing significant snowfall at other times in December and an affidavit stating it was snowing heavily the day before the accident.
• Defendants: Contended that they did not owe a duty to the Plaintiff to keep the stairs free of ice and snow, as there had been no snowfall in Albuquerque for over a week prior to the alleged incident. They argued that the Plaintiff's claims were contradicted by her own deposition testimony and answers to interrogatories, where she unequivocally stated the accident occurred on December 27.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants based on the argument that they did not owe a duty to the Plaintiff to keep the stairs free of ice and snow.
• Whether the Plaintiff's later submissions created a material issue of fact necessitating a trial.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, consisting of Judges Michael D. Bustamante, Michael E. Vigil, and Linda M. Vanzi, found that the Defendants' argument that it had not snowed on December 26 or 27 did not negate the Plaintiff's allegations that she slipped on ice on the stairs or her allegations of negligence. The Court opined that snow from earlier in December could have remained on the stairs until the 27th, thus potentially constituting a breach of duty by the Defendants in failing to remove it. The Court also noted that the Plaintiff's response to the Defendants' motion for summary judgment was sufficient to rebut their prima facie case and establish a material issue of fact, particularly with her affidavit stating it was snowing heavily the day before she fell. The Court acknowledged the Plaintiff's deposition testimony and discovery responses clearly stated the fall occurred on December 27, 2006, but also recognized inconsistencies within her testimony regarding the weather conditions, which could suggest the accident occurred on a different date. The Court concluded that these inconsistencies must be resolved by the trier of fact, thus precluding summary judgment.