 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Adams v. Cinemark USA12/5/2002
ting within the scope of her employment when she assaulted Adams and what was Adams's demeanor and the exact tenor and nature of the words spoken by her.
. In my opinion, the nature of the words spoken by Adams are significant. Adams could have questioned Thomas's authority. Her words could have signaled to Thomas that despite theater rules, she was going inside without a ticket. She could have told Thomas that despite your master's command for you to instruct me to wait here for a manager, I'm going inside and find him myself, and when I do, I am going to get you fired. Likewise, Adams's demeanor could have led Thomas to believe that she was going to become violent or destructive herself. In short, the events that led up to the altercation have significance as to whether Thomas had a justifiable belief, however skewed her reaction to it may have been, that Adams presented a threat to the responsibility entrusted her by Cinemark.
. In any event, because I believe that the grant of summary judgment was in error, it follows a fortiori that I believe the failure to allow a hearing was not harmless error.
III.
. The law governing the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment is well established. The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion has been made. If, in this view, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment should forthwith be entered in his favor. Otherwise, the motion should be denied. Cinemark put the events that caused injury to Adams in motion. It hired Thomas, thereby creating this danger, and it should be held responsible. Giving Adams the benefit of every doubt, as we must, I cannot say that material facts are not in dispute. Considering that Thomas's motivation in attacking Adams could have been a mixed one, both for her personal vendetta and in furtherance of Cinemark's business, whether Thomas's actions were within her scope of employment is an issue best resolved by a jury.
. Cinemark has a duty to screen its employees and provide members of the public who come to its theater a safe place to spend an evening. This is not to say that employers must know everything about their employees, or that an employer should be liable every time an employee disregards their instructions, goes berserk, and attacks a member of the public. Each case should be analyzed on its own facts. Sometimes the employer's instructions will be sufficient, in other situations a thorough background check and probationary period would be necessary. In this case, a jury should determine whether Cinemark should be held responsible for the actions of Thomas.
. Because I disagree with the majority's conclusion that no material fact existed as to whether Thomas was acting within the scope of her employment, I would reverse the trial court's grant of summary judgment and remand the case for trial.
McRAE, P.J., AND GRAVES, J., JOIN THIS OPINION.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|