This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Filed September 4, 2007
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CV-06-1859
James N. Schloner, Lake Calhoun Executive Center, 3033 Excelsior Boulevard, Suite 10, Minneapolis, MN 55416 (for appellant)
Michael J. Tomsche, Bryan B. Carroll, Tomsche, Sonnesyn & Tomsche, 610 Ottawa Avenue North, Golden Valley, MN 55422 (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Klaphake, Presiding Judge, Toussaint, Chief Judge, and Kalitowski, Judge.
Appellant Mary Owens challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing her claim of negligence against respondent Lisa Carter for injuries she suffered when she tripped through a front door that had missing glass. Because respondent owed no duty to appellant to warn of a known and obvious hazard, we affirm.
district court must grant summary judgment if there are no genuine issues of
material fact and one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
negligence action, a defendant is entitled to summary judgment if the record
reflects a complete lack of proof on any of the four elements of a prima facie
case. Louis v. Louis, 636 N.W.2d 314, 318 (
a landowner owes a duty to use reasonable care for the safety of all entrants onto
the land. Louis, 636 N.W.2d at 318.
The entrant on the land is likewise expected to exercise a duty of
reasonable care for his or her own safety.
the case of an obvious and known danger, a landowner may nevertheless be liable
if the landowner should have anticipated the harm.
Here, appellant’s daughter rented a house from respondent; on June 26, 2004, the unoccupied house was hit by bullets during a drive-by shooting, damaging the interior and breaking the glass out of the front door. On July 7, appellant accompanied her daughter to the house to collect some clothing. Appellant’s statements confirm that she was aware of the glassless front door before she arrived at the house and saw it upon arrival, even commenting on the missing glass. Appellant entered the house through the door by opening it and stated that she simply forgot about the missing glass in the door when, overcome by emotion, she hurriedly left the house. She was injured when she tripped over the lower frame of the door. By her own admissions, appellant was aware of the obvious and known hazard of the glassless door; respondent had no reason to anticipate that appellant would trip over the door in her haste to leave the house. Therefore respondent had no duty to warn her of the known and hazardous condition. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.
Motion to Strike
Respondent moved at special term for an order striking appellant’s memorandum in opposition to summary judgment and supporting affidavit, both of which are included in appellant’s appendix. According to the district court’s memorandum filed with the order for summary judgment, appellant’s attorney failed to file the motion papers until the day of the hearing, in violation of Minn. Gen. R. Pract. 115.03(b) (requiring non-moving party to submit responsive memorandum “at least 9 days prior to the hearing”). The district court ordered them stricken from the record in accordance with Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 115.06.
record on appeal consists of “[t]he papers filed in the trial court, the
exhibits, and the transcript of the proceedings.”
Affirmed; motion granted.