 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Washington v. Casino America6/25/2002
sume the duties of the local police department. Having done so, the Casino was obligated to perform these duties in a nonnegligent manner, particularly in light of the fact that the local police lacked the authority to investigate accidents on the Casino's premises.
. The Casino argues that whether it owed a duty to the Appellants is a question of law, and not of fact, and cites to the case of Lyle v. Mladinich, 584 So. 2d 397, 400 (Miss. 1991), as authority. The cited authority for Lyle was Harris v. Pizza Hut of Louisiana, Inc., 455 So. 2d 1364 (La. 1984). Harris holds that, while generally there is no duty to protect others from the criminal activities of third persons, when a duty to protect others against such criminal misconduct has been assumed, liability may be created by a negligent breach of that duty. Harris, 455 So. 2d at 1371.
. We see no need to address the question of whether the Casino assumed a duty to investigate and report traffic accidents occurring in its parking lot. As previously observed, the trial court held that the Appellants "failed to establish a legal duty owed to them by the [Casino] that was breached." We agree with the trial court that no duty was breached even if, on the facts of this case, one was owed. As we explain in the following paragraph, there simply is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether, in this instance, the security officer was negligent in the performance of that duty.
. The undisputed fact is that the security officer was acting under the misapprehension that what he was witnessing in the parking lot when he arrived on the scene was a dispute over a parking space. The officer's conduct in asking the male driver to allow the female driver to occupy the parking space was his attempt at resolving that dispute and was completely reasonable. In order for the male driver to comply with the officer's request, it was necessary that the driver move the automobile. Consequently, the officer would not have had any reason to try to prevent the driver from moving the automobile or to question the driver's identity.
. It is also undisputed that there was no physical evidence of an automobile collision to alert the security officer to that fact, other than a small dent on the bumper of the appellants' vehicle, which apparently was not even noticeable to the officer until it was pointed out. Consequently, not having any way of knowing that an accident had occurred, the security officer's conduct was beyond reproach.
. It is unfortunate that the male driver took advantage of the situation and allowed the officer to believe that it was merely a parking space dispute and not an accident that had occurred and then absconded; however, in the absence of any evidence that the security officer knew or should have known that an accident had taken place, there can be no finding of negligence on the part of the officer or the Casino.
. Consequently, upon review of the facts in this case in the light most favorable to the Appellants, this Court does not find a genuine issue of material fact warranting a trial on the merits. Therefore, we agree with the learned trial judge's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the Casino.
. THE JUDGMENT OF THE WARREN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANTS.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE, MYERS, CHANDLER AND BRANTLEY, JJ., CONCUR.
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.
|
|