 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Daulton v. Miller12/4/2001
l guest, who is a licensee, since there was no economic benefit to the church "as it is a non-commercial, non-profit entity." Clark, 538 So. 2d at 762. The Supreme Court reversed.
Religious bodies do expressly and impliedly invite members to come and attend their services and functions. They hold their doors open to the public. While they do not charge admission fees as does the Old Spanish Fort, churches do depend on contributions much the same as historical sites do, in order that they may continue to be open to the public. Therefore, a church member who does not exceed the scope of a church's invitation, is an invitee while attending a church for church services or related functions. Id.
The importance of Clark is that the Court relied on the potential of monetary contributions to define the status of the entrant. That is the missing ingredient in the case before us.
. There was no economic benefit, realized or potential, gained by Miller in the present case. Instead, there was an economic cost created by this extravagant Christmas display, in the form of maintenance to her property and increased electric bills.
. "The determination of which status a particular plaintiff holds can be a jury question, but where the facts are not in dispute the classification becomes a question of law. Adams v. Fred's Dollar Store of Batesville, F.W., 497 So. 2d 1097, 1100 (Miss. 1986). As such Daulton's status is properly defined as a licensee.
. The duty of care that a landowner owes a licensee is "to refrain from willfully or wantonly injuring him." Little, 719 So. 2d at 760. Daulton's Complaint described the area where she fell as a "dimly lit grass pathway," crossing "uneven, bumpy ground . . . ." Having a pathway such as this does not constitute willful and wanton creation of dangers to people entering the property.
The guests assumes the ordinary risks which are attached to the premises. No exceptions is made to this rule because of the fact that the guests enters on the host's express invitation to enjoy his hospitality. A hosts merely offers his premises for the enjoyment of his guests with the same security which the host and members of his family who reside with him have. Id., citing Raney v. Jennings, 248 Miss. 140, 158 So. 2d 715, 718 (1963).
. Daulton presented no evidence in any of her pleadings, affidavits, or depositions which created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Miller's conduct could be willful or wanton. The granting of summary judgment was proper on this issue.
. Mr. Daulton also makes a claim for loss of consortium. This is solely a derivative claim. Choctaw, Inc. v. Wichner, 521 So. 2d 878, 881 (Miss. 1988). Restated, this means that a spouse has no better claim in court than the primary claimant does. Mrs. Daulton's status when injured on Miller's property was that of a licensee. The only duty that Miller owed was not to wilfully and wantonly injure her. Having upheld that duty, Miller is not subject to a derivative claim.
. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CHANCERY COURT OF LAFAYETTE COUNTY IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANTS.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING, P.J., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE, IRVING, MYERS, CHANDLER AND BRANTLEY, JJ., CONCUR.
|