 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Newell v. Southern Jitney Jungle Co.10/31/2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/17/1998 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. R. I. PRICHARD, III COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: LAMAR COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED-10/31/2002
EN BANC.
. The issue in the present case is whether Kay L. Newell has stated sufficient grounds to sustain a negligence claim against Southern Jitney Jungle Stores of America d/b/a Sack and Save. We hold that the Workers' Compensation Law, Miss. Code Ann. ยงยง 71-3-1 to -129 (2000 & Supp. 2002), provides no remedy for Newell's injuries, and thus, it is not her exclusive remedy. We also decline to impose upon a business strict liability for all injuries occurring on its premises as a result of criminal acts committed by a third party when the business's actions did not impel the act of that third party.
FACTS
. On October 14, 1997, Kay L. Newell ("Newell") was at her place of employment, a grocery store, Sack and Save, which is owned and operated by Southern Jitney Jungle Stores of America . Newell's estranged husband, William Roderick ("Roderick"), entered Sack and Save and shot Newell four times with a .44 caliber handgun.
. Several times before the shooting incident, Roderick appeared at the Sack and Save stalking, harassing, and threatening Newell in front of managers and other employees. The day before the shooting Roderick caused a disturbance at Sack and Save. Newell's supervisor helped her file charges against Roderick.
. After the shooting, Newell filed this action claiming Sack and Save was negligent in failing to furnish her with a safe place to work and in failing to provide security for her. No other counts were alleged. Newell argues in the alternative that she should have at least been allowed workers' compensation benefits. Sack and Save denied liability under the Workers' Compensation Act. On October 30, 1998, Sack and Save filed a M.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. On December 17, 1998, the motion to dismiss was granted. Aggrieved Newell filed this appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
. A motion to dismiss under M.R.C. P. 12(b)(6) raises an issue of law. T.M. v. Noblitt, 650 So. 2d 1340, 1342 (Miss. 1995)(collecting authorities). This Court conducts de novo review on questions of law. Id. When considering such a motion, the allegations in the complaint must be taken as true, and the motion should not be granted unless it appears beyond doubt on the face of the complaint that the plaintiff will be unable to prove any set of facts in support of his claim. Lang v. Bay St. Louis/Waveland Sch. Dist., 764 So. 2d 1234, 1236 (Miss. 1999).
DISCUSSION
. Newell's complaint claims Sack and Save owed her a duty to provide a safe place to work and a duty to provide her security. Although not an insurer of an invitee's safety, a premises owner owes a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the invitee from reasonably foreseeable injuries at the hands of another. See generally Lyle v. Mladinich, 584 So. 2d 397, 399 (Miss. 1991). See also McGovern v. Scarborough, 566 So. 2d 1225 (Miss. 1990). Newell's claim, as an invitee as this Court characterizes her, is brought under the theory of premises liability where Sack and Save's duty is properly stated as one of reasonable care.
. We have stated two ways a plaintiff can prove proximate causation in premises liability cases: 1) that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the assailant's violent nature, or 2) actual or constructive knowledge an atmosphere of violence existed on the premises. Grisham v. John Q. Long V.F.W. Post, No. 4057, Inc., 519 So. 2d 413, 416 (Miss. 1988).
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|