From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hatfield v. Universal Services, Inc.

Supreme Court of Alaska
Feb 6, 1981
622 P.2d 984 (Alaska 1981)

Opinion

No. 4743.

February 6, 1981.

Appeal from the Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Peter J. Kalamarides, J.

A. Lee Petersen, A. Lee Petersen, Inc., Anchorage, for appellant.

Clay A. Young, Delaney, Wiles, Moore, Hayes Reitman, Inc., Anchorage, for appellee.

Before RABINOWITZ, C.J., CONNOR, BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ., and COOKE, Superior Court Judge.


OPINION


This is a "slip and fall" tort case.

The court's instructions on appellee's duty of care were adequate.

We are unpersuaded by appellant's contention that in a case of this type the jury must be instructed as to how a reasonable person performs the activity of walking. Even if the requested instruction was a proper statement of the law, the failure to give it in this case was harmless, because the appellee was found not to have been negligent. See Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure 51(b), 61. Therefore, we must affirm the judgment.

The instruction requested by appellant was: "The plaintiff in the exercise of reasonable care was not required to look at the floor in front of him as he walked. He may safely assume that the premises were in reasonably safe condition in the absence of any notice to the contrary."

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Hatfield v. Universal Services, Inc.

Supreme Court of Alaska
Feb 6, 1981
622 P.2d 984 (Alaska 1981)
Case details for

Hatfield v. Universal Services, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:DAVID HATFIELD, APPELLANT, v. UNIVERSAL SERVICES, INC., A TEXAS…

Court:Supreme Court of Alaska

Date published: Feb 6, 1981

Citations

622 P.2d 984 (Alaska 1981)

Citing Cases

Baker v. Werner

Accordingly, even were such an instruction improper, any error was harmless. Alaska R.Civ.P. 61; Hatfield v.…