 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sample v. Haga12/18/2001
DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT: 10/17/2000
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JOHN M. MONTGOMERY
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: CLAY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 12/18/2001
. Mary Alice Sample and James Williams tragically lost their lives when the house owned by Richard and Pam Haga caught fire and burned down. Sample and Williams were staying at the house as guests of Rowener Thompson, who rented the house from the Hagas. The descendants of both Sample and Williams sued the Hagas alleging that the house was unsafe. The case was dismissed on summary judgment as the trial judge found that there were no genuine issues of material fact to be adjudicated in this case. Aggrieved by this decision, the descendants of Sample and Williams perfected this appeal raising the following issues:
1. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE HAGAS OWED NO DUTY TO THE DECEDENTS AND THAT THERE WAS NO TRIABLE ISSUE OF FACT CONCERNING WILLFUL AND WANTON MISCONDUCT BY THE HAGAS UNDER THE THEORY OF PREMISES LIABILITY; AND
2. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY WAS NOT ASSERTED IN THE COMPLAINT, THAT THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY DID NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE, AND THAT THE ABSENCE OF SMOKE DETECTORS DOES NOT BREACH THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
. Richard and Pam Haga rented a sixty year old, one story house to Rowener Thompson, a nonparty. Although the Hagas were responsible for any repairs to be made on the house, Thompson exercised complete control of the house. Thompson had guests over at the rent house on the night of January 30, 1998. These guests included Thompson's sister, Mary Alice Sample, and Sample's boyfriend, James Williams. Sample and Williams were staying overnight at the house. Prior to these events, the electricity to the house had been cut off due to Thompson's failure to pay the electric bill. Because there was no light in the house, Thompson gave Sample and Williams a candle by which to see to get ready for bed. The candle was placed on a table and left burning through the night in the bedroom used by Sample and Williams. The candle caused the house to catch fire. There were no fire detectors installed in the house. The windows in the house could not be opened because Thompson had placed sticks in the tract of the glass pane to prevent individuals from gaining access to the house while she was away. Both Sample and Williams made it outside the house at different times but each re-entered the house to look for the other. Tragically, neither survived the fire. The descendants of Sample and Williams brought suit against the Hagas for the wrongful death of decedents alleging that the Hagas breached a legal duty to decedents. The trial judge dismissed the descendants' action with prejudice on the Hagas' motion for summary judgment. Aggrieved by this decision, the descendants perfected this appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW AND LEGAL ANALYSIS
. This Court reviews orders granting summary judgment de novo. Dailey v. Methodist Med. Ctr., 790 So. 2d 903, 907 ( 3) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). As such, all evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and they are given the benefit of every reasonable doubt. Id. The burden is placed on the moving party to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Id. A material fact is a factual issue "that matters in an outcome determinative sense." Id. All questions of law are reviewed de novo. Donald v. Amoco Prod. C
Page 1 2 3 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|