 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ratcliff v. Georgia Pacific Corp.12/13/2005
ntractor, and Georgia Pacific breached that duty for which granting of summary judgment was error; (2) the trial court committed error in finding that Georgia Pacific had no control over Ratcliff in covering the load; (3) the trial court committed error in finding that an "open and obvious danger" and/or "knowledge of the danger" exceptions absolves Georgia Pacific and Tasma of liability; and (3) the trial court committed error in granting summary judgment to Tasma.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
. An appeal from summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Jacox v. Circus Circus Mississippi, Inc., 908 So.2d 181, 183 (4 ) (MisS.Ct. App. 2005) (citing Cossitt v. Alfa Ins. Corp., 726 So. 2d 132, 136 ( ) (Miss. 1998)). The standard by which we review the grant or denial of summary judgment is the same standard as is employed by the trial court under Rule 56(c) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. (citing Dailey v. Methodist Medical Center, 790 So. 2d. 903, 906-07 ( ) (MisS.Ct. App. 2001)). This Court conducts a de novo review of the entire record to determine whether any genuine issues of material fact exist. Id. at 184 ( ) (citing Dailey, 790 So. 2d at 907). The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
I. Whether the trial court committed error in granting summary judgment because Georgia Pacific owed a duty of care to Ratcliff, an employee of an independent contractor, and Georgia Pacific breached that duty.
. Ratcliff asserts that he was an employee of an independent contractor, and maintains that the Appellees owed him a duty of reasonable care for his safety on their premises. In the same breath, however, Ratcliff also asserts that the Appellees owed him this duty because he was a business invitee. A business invitee is defined as one who enters the premises "at the owner's invitation to pursue a matter of mutual advantage." Ball v. Dominion Ins. Corp., 794 So. 2d 271, 273 ( ) (MisS.Ct. App. 2001) (citing Hoffman v. Planters Gin Company, Inc., 358 So. 2d 1008, 1011 (Miss. 1978)). On the other hand, an independent contractor is defined as "a person who contracts with another to do something for him but who is not controlled by the other nor subject to the other's right to control with respect to his physical conduct in the performance of the undertaking." Gray v. Abs Global, Inc., 850 So. 2d 180, 184 ( ) (MisS.Ct. App. 2003). Under the facts, and in light of Ratcliff's admission, it is apparent that Ratcliff was the employee of an independent contractor, and not a business invitee.
. The general rule is that an owner has a duty to furnish the employees of an independent contractor with a "reasonably safe place to work or give warning of danger." Mississippi Chemical Corp. v. Rogers, 368 So. 2d 220, 222 (Miss. 1979) (citing Mississippi Power Co. v. Brooks, 309 So. 2d 863 (Miss. 1975)). However, the owner is relieved of his duty to give warning to the independent contractor or his employees if the independent contractor is aware of the danger. Id. (citing Jackson Ready-Mix Concrete v. Sexton, 235 So. 2d 267, 270 (Miss. 1970)). Moreover, the owner has no duty to protect the independent contractor or his employees from dangers arising out of or intimately connected with the work to be performed by the independent contractor. Coho Resources Inc. v. McCarthy, 829 So. 2d 1, 11 ( ) (Miss. 2002) (citing Magee v. Trans Continental Pipeline Corp., 551 So. 2d 182, 185 (Miss. 1989)).
. The danger posed to Ratcliff arose out of or was intimately connected with his duties as a truck driver for Mike Barnes Trucking. Protecting the load from the weather was a contract provision agreed to
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.
|
|