 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Warren v. Glascoe2/11/2003
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSAL IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
. On November 7, 1998, fifteen year old Daniel Shields was driving his grandfather's vehicle when he collided with Lincoln Warren, Sr. on County Line Road in Ridgeland, Mississippi. Warren filed suit against Daniel's grandparents, Jack and Margaret Glascoe, claiming vicarious liability and negligent supervision. The Hinds County Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Glascoes stating there was no genuine issue of material fact. Warren appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
. Fifteen year old Daniel Shields spent a Friday night with his grandparents, Margaret and Jack Glascoe, at their home in Jackson. On the following morning, Daniel, who had received his learner's permit approximately thirty days earlier, drove Margaret to Yazoo City and back to Jackson in Jack's automobile. The two ran errands consisting of going to Margaret's deceased mother's home in Yazoo City to pick up some items and to Margaret's hair appointment in Canton. On the return trip, Daniel collided with a vehicle driven by Lincoln Warren, Sr. on County Line Road in Ridgeland. Warren alleges that since the accident he suffers from a semi-comatose condition.
. The Mississippi Court of Appeals has previously heard an appeal arising out of this case. Warren v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, 797 So. 2d 1043 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). Warren first filed suit against the Glascoes's insurance company United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company. Id. at 1044 ( ). Warren claimed the Glascoes were negligent in their supervision and in entrusting the car to Daniel. Id. The trial court granted summary judgment and this Court affirmed stating that the Glascoes's insurance policy excluded coverage for personal injuries arising out of the causes of action the plaintiff claimed. Id. at 1045 ( ).
LAW AND ANALYSIS
. In cases involving the review of a summary judgment this Court must employ a de novo standard. Rawson v. Jones, 816 So. 2d 367, 368 ( ) (Miss. 2002). Thus, this Court uses the same standard as the trial court. Clark v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 794 So. 2d 191, 194 ( ) (Miss. 2001). In reaching this determination, this Court examines affidavits and other evidence to determine whether a triable issue exists, rather than for the purpose of resolving that issue. M.R.C.P. 56 cmt. The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, who is to be given the benefit of every reasonable doubt. Smith v. Sanders, 485 So. 2d 1051, 1054 (Miss. 1986).
I. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHES THAT THERE IS A GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT WHICH SHOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE TRIAL COURT FROM GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE BASIS THAT THE APPELLEE IS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE APPELLANT'S INJURIES AS A MATTER OF LAW.
. The appellant purports that this is a case of first impression. The appellant contends that the Glascoes are vicariously liable, not under the family purpose doctrine, but under an agency doctrine. He contends the grandparents had a master/servant relationship with their grandson because the trip was for the benefit of the grandparents with the grandmother serving as the co-driver. He argues that the grandson was simply serving as the chauffeur.
. The appellant states that the trial court was in error because the judge based his summary judgment ruling on the abolished family purpose doctrine. Under the common law family purpose doctrine the head of a household can be held liable for the negligent acts of
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|