holding that summary judgment should be granted “only when it is clear that there is no genuine issue of fact to be tried and inquiry concerning the facts is not desirable to clarify the application of the law.”
How later courts described this case
- holding that summary judgment should be granted “only when it is clear that there is no genuine issue of fact to be tried and inquiry concerning the facts is not desirable to clarify the application of the law.”
- discussing cases in which courts have recognized that landowner’s duty to business invitees may *540 extend beyond premises where landowner knows that invitees regularly use adjacent property in connection with business invitation and also knows that such use exposes invitees to risk of injury
- discussing cases in which courts have recognized that landowner's duty to business invitees may extend beyond premises where landowner knows that invitees regularly use adjacent property in connection with business invitation and also knows that such use exposes invitees to risk of injury
- “‘A motion for summary judgment should be granted only when it is clear that there is no genuine issue of fact to be tried and inquiry concerning the facts is not desirable to clarify the application of the law.’ Syllabus Point 3, Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Federal Insurance Co. of New York, 148 W.Va. 160, 133 S.E.2d 770 (1963).”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Estate of Helmick v. Martin, 192 W. Va. 501 (1994)
We find that our holding in Andrick, supra, therefore, is inapplicable to the case at bar.
The opinion
WORKMAN, Justice,
dissenting:
The majority’s opinion is troubling in that syllabus point 3 seems in rather direct conflict with syllabus point 1 in last year’s case of Durm v. Heck’s, Inc., 184 W.Va. 562 , 401 S.E.2d 908 (1991). The majority indicates that, at least absent an express lease provision, any business which invites customers to park on an off-premises parking lot is liable for injury occurring to invitees as a result of defect or dangerous conditions. This has rather broad liability implications for many small businesses, especially in a case like the instant one where the parking lot owner clearly acknowledged that he retained the responsibility to repair and maintain the lot. Furthermore, it is a sharp departure from a fairly long line of cases where we have taken a different view. As we pointed out in Durm , in cases dealing with premises liability we have generally adhered to the principle that liability results either from control of the subject area or from a specific wrongful act. One wonders if this result might have been dictated by the existence of insurance coverage, as opposed to a coherent step in the development of the law in this area.
The majority opinion now leaves the law in this arena somewhat murky.