 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Daulton v. Miller12/4/2001
DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT: 11/16/2000
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. HENRY L. LACKEY
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: LAFAYETTE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED TO APPELLEE.
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 12/04/2001
. The plaintiffs filed suit for injuries that one of them suffered while on the defendant's property to examine an outdoor Christmas display. Summary judgment was granted the defendant. On appeal, the plaintiffs assert that there is a disputed issue of material fact that could cause the plaintiff to be considered a business or public invitee, thereby increasing the duty of care owed by the landowner. We find that summary judgment was proper and affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
. Annette Miller and her husband reside in Paris, Lafayette County, Mississippi. It has been their practice to decorate their property with an assortment of lighting displays and other items symbolic of the Christmas season. This display of the holiday spirit was part of a neighborhood-wide endeavor and attracted spectators from more than a five county radius. Miller charged no admission and received no other monetary consideration from visitors to the property.
. On December 29, 1997, Brenda Daulton was on the Miller property to enjoy the display. While there, she fell and broke her right ankle. The area where Daulton fell was described as a grass pathway with a slight grade or slope. As a result of her fall, Daulton required extensive surgery on her ankle, experienced extensive pain, and suffered permanent damage to her ankle.
. On November 29, 1999, Daulton and her husband James filed suit asserting that Miller was negligent. Summary judgment in favor of Miller was eventually granted. DISCUSSION
. The only appellate issue is whether a dispute of material fact existed that barred the grant of summary judgment. Such a judgment is proper 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 matter of law." M.R.C.P. 56(c). Thus there are two issues. One is whether as to the material facts, any are in dispute. The second is whether the legal analysis of the undisputed facts has led the trial judge to the correct decision.
. The starting place for a negligence suit such as this is to identify the nature of any rights the injured party had to be on the property where the injury occurred. Daulton must be an invitee, a licensee or a trespasser. Little by Little v. Bell, 719 So. 2d 757, 760 (Miss. 1998). 1) An invitee is a person who enters the property of another in response to an express or implied invitation of the owner or occupant for the mutual advantage or benefit of the parties involved. Little, 719 So. 2d at 760. 2) A licensee is a person entering another's property for his own benefit or pleasure. 3) Finally, a trespasser enters premises "without license, invitation or other right." Id.
. What follows inexorably from identifying the injured party's status is the defining of the landowner's duty. An invitee is owed the highest duty. The landowner must provide property that is "reasonably safe and when not reasonably safe to warn only where there is hidden danger or peril that is not plain and open view." Id. A licensee or trespasser is owed only the duty to have the landowner "refrain from willfully or wantonly injuring him." Id.
. Mutual advantage is needed to create invitee status. This g
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.
|
|