Mississippi Legal Update September 2014

PREMISES LIABILITY: Foreseeability Sinks
Boaters’ Lawsuit

Enjoying a night on the lake and while at anchor, boaters were injured when struck by a second speeding boat. However, the property owner’s association (POA) that owned the lake had no liability for injuries caused by third-parties, since the POA had no reason to anticipate the accident. Dedeaux v. Lake Caroline Owners Association, Inc. (Court of Civil Appeals of Mississippi; No. 2013-CA-00671-COA; September 9, 2014). The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the POA that owned the lake. They had no reason to anticipate the accident.

  • Duty to invitees to keep premises reasonably safe, and to warn of hidden dangers.
  • Duty to protect invitees from injuries at the hand of others that are reasonably foreseeable.
  • Key question 1: Whether the POA had actual or constructive knowledge that the speeding boat driver had been negligently operating his boat on the lake?
  • Key question 2: Whether the POA had actual or constructive knowledge of a general history of negligent boating on the lake?

The court considered the case as if the plaintiffs were the POA’s business invitees. As is typical, the court reminded us that the landowner owes to the invitee a duty to keep the premises reasonably safe and to warn of hidden dangers. While these cases traditionally involve a landowner keeping the physical premises reasonably safe (i.e., the grocery store slip and fall case), in the 1980’s the Mississippi Supreme Court began expanding the duty to include negligent or wrongful attacks on the invitee by other patrons. Now, the landowner has a duty to protect invitees from injuries at the hand of others – if reasonably foreseeable. The question is whether there is reason to anticipate the wrongful or negligent act of the third party.

Here, for the case to survive, the POA had to have actual or constructive knowledge that the speeding boater had been negligently operating his boat on the lake. Or, the plaintiffs could have proved that the POA had actual or constructive knowledge of a general history of negligent boating on the lake. If the POA had cause to anticipate the accident, then a duty would exist.

The plaintiffs attempted proof through general, prior history on the lake; and failed. One boat wreck six years prior was insufficient. Nor did Owen’s boating history suffice. The plaintiff’s affidavit concerning other fast moving boats on the lake did not help either. The affidavit lacked information concerning numbers, times frames and whether other boats were in danger. Considering 700 registered boats at the lake, one boat wreck six years prior was insufficient to find that the POA should have anticipated the boat accident. As such, the POA owed no duty to the injured boaters. Therefore, summary judgment in favor of the POA was proper.

Read the full decision.

 

Pancakes Instead of Baby Backs?:  Leaves Licensee With Empty Plate.  


Court of Appeals of Mississippi holds individual not patronizing restaurant but utilizing parking lot is licensee.  Banks v. Brinker Mississippi, Inc., No. 2013-CA-00521-COA.

In Banks v. Brinker, the plaintiff, Banks, parked her vehicle in a Chili’s parking lot in Southaven, Mississippi. Banks planned to eat with friends at an IHOP located next to the Chili’s and had no intention of patronizing the Chili’s. After eating at IHOP, Banks was injured when she fell in the Chili’s parking lot returning to her vehicle. The premise owner filed a motion for summary judgment arguing Banks did not intend to patronize the Chili’s when she parked on the property and was only owed the duty accorded to a licensee. The premise owner further argued that as a license, Banks failed to show willful or wanton conduct with regards to the condition of the parking lot. The trial court granted the premise owner’s motion for summary judgment and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals noted that the status of an individual is often a jury question. However, where the facts are undisputed, status is a question of law for the trial court. The court noted a licensee is a “person entering another’s property for his own benefit or pleasure.” The duty owed to a licensee is to “refrain from willfully or wantonly injuring him.” Due to the fact Chili’s derived no benefit from Bank’s use of its parking lot and Banks failed to present an issue of material fact supporting her status as an invitee, summary judgment was affirmed.

Read the full decision.

 

Stolen Truck Leaves Plaintiffs Out Of Luck.


Court of Appeals of Mississippi holds intervening criminal acts of truck thief absolves trucking company.  Thornton v. Big M Transportation Co., No. 2013-CA-00988-COA.

In Thornton v. Big M Transportation Co., the plaintiffs sought recovery after colliding with a tractor trailer owned by the defendant Big M. The truck was parked on a highway in the early morning hours after having been stolen from the trucking company’s parking lot. The Supreme Court in affirming summary judgment for the trucking company reasoned “criminal acts can be intervening causes which break the causal connection with the defendant’s negligent act.” The court found that the criminal act in question was not reasonably foreseeable. Based on the fact the theft and negligent driving of the truck were outside of the trucking company’s “realm of reasonable foreseeability,” any negligence on the part of the defendant “failed to constitute proximate cause of the collision” and resulting injuries. Summary judgment in favor of the defendant trucking company was affirmed.

Read the full decision.