 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Young v. Wendy's International3/18/2003
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
. Catherine Young filed suit against Wendy's International, Inc. and Wenstar Inc., alleging that Wendy's and Wenstar breached its duty to maintain the premises of a Wendy's Restaurant in a safe manner, by permitting an unsafe and defective chair to remain in the dining room and that these aforementioned acts constituted gross negligence on the part of the defendants. The Hinds County Circuit Court granted Wendy's and Wenstar's summary judgment on both of these claims. The court concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact, thereby entitling the defendants to judgment as a matter of law. Catherine Young appeals to this Court from that judgment.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND WENSTAR, INC.?
FACTS
. Catherine Young entered into a Wendy's restaurant with her granddaughter, Latonya Bonds, and after ordering her food, Young walked over to a table and sat on a chair placed at the table. Young claimed that as she proceeded to pull the chair towards the table the chair gave way, causing her to fall to the floor and incur serious injury to her person. After ordering her food, Latonya walked over to the table where Young was seated and noticed that Young "looked dazed." A Wendy's manager walked over to where they were seated and was informed by Catherine that "the chair was wobbly." After being so informed by Young, the manager examined and inspected the chair. Young claims that, while the manager was testing and observing the chair, Latonya, noticed that the chair appeared to be extremely wobbly and unstable. Later, after examining the chair herself, Latonya claims that the chair's legs were loose and not secure, and the chair would not remain firmly in place. However, a Wendy's employee, in an affidavit, expressly asserts that not only was the chair in question not unsteady in any manner, but as a matter of fact, remains in use in the restaurant. In Young's deposition, she stated that she was not even certain whether she continued to sit in the chair after the fall or not.
ANALYSIS
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND WENSTAR, INC.?
. When reviewing a lower court's decision to grant or deny a summary judgment motion, it is proper to employ a de novo standard of review. Hudson v. Courtesy Motors, 794 So. 2d 999, 1002 ( ) (Miss. 2001) (citing Russell v. Orr, 700 So. 2d 619, 622 (Miss. 1997)).
. The rule in Mississippi is that summary judgments shall be entered by a trial judge "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a law of law." M.R.C.P. 56(c).
. It is standard practice that "summary judgment, in whole or in part, should be granted with great caution." Brown v Credit Center Inc., 444 So. 2d 358, 363 (Miss. 1983). The moving party has the burden of proving that no triable genuine issue of fact exists, and the non-moving party is given the benefit of reasonable doubt. Tucker v. Hinds, 558 So. 2d 869, 872 (Miss. 1990). However, the non-moving party cannot just remain silent and do nothing. Newell v. Hinton, 556 So. 2d 1037, 1041(Miss. 1990). He must bring forward "significant probative evidence demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact." Id. at 1042.
. Furthermore, the plaintiff must show that the party charged is the party actually responsib
Page 1 2 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|