Wagner, et al. v. The Mattiace Co.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-01634-COA | |
| Oral Argument: | 07-18-2006 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-12-2006 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Duty to maintain property - Assumption of duty Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: IRVING, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-30-2005 Appealed from: PANOLA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Ann H. Lamar Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT ENTERED. Case Number: CV2002-0350LP2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | FRANCES WAGNER AND MORRIS WAGNER |
CHRISTOPHER ETHAN KITTELL |
||
| Appellee: | THE MATTIACE COMPANY | MICHAEL D. SIMMONS |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Personal injury - Duty to maintain property - Assumption of duty |
| Summary of the Facts: | While browsing at a catalog return store named Returns, Francis Wagner stepped backward to get a better view a certain piece of furniture and tripped, striking her head on the floor below and causing severe injury. Wagner brought suit against the store owner and sublessee, Mike Lukacs, the lessee, Food Giant Supermarkets, Inc., and the Mattiace Company, the property manager of the shopping center in which Returns was located. After Wagner’s claims against Lukacs and Food Giant had settled and been dismissed, Mattiace filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, and Wagner appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Duty to maintain property Wagner argues that the court erred in finding that Mattiace had no contractual duty to maintain the interior of the space where Returns was located. The Agreement stipulated that Mattiace was to hire and supervise those individuals needed to “maintain and operate the Property.” Whatever duty burdened Mattiace as a result of the Agreement was narrowed, as to the space Returns occupied, by the Lease and Sublease. As Mattiace was the owner’s agent, Mattiace stepped into the shoes of the owner, whose duties with respect to the Returns’ space were detailed in the Lease. The Lease stated that “the Lessor is not bound to make any repairs whatsoever” other than repairs relating to the roof, roof structure, exterior walls, and foundation and that the lessee was responsible for all other repairs. Thus, even if the Agreement instilled a duty to maintain the interior of the Returns’ space, the Lease and Sublease relieved the lessor of such duties while the Lease was in effect. Therefore, Mattiace was not under a contractual duty to maintain or repair the interior of the Returns space, generally, or remove the substance which allegedly caused Wagner’s injuries, specifically. Issue 2: Assumption of duty Wagner argues that even if Mattiace did not have a contractual duty to remove the substance, it assumed such a duty when it made some repairs and hired a cleaning crew for the space prior to Returns opening for business. Whether a party assumed a duty must be determined by the individual facts of the case and the existence or absence of detrimental reliance on that assumed duty. Even assuming that Mattiace assumed a duty to generally clean the interior of the Returns space in order to facilitate Lukacs’s opening of the store, it can not be said that Mattiace assumed a duty to remove the substance. Any liability incurred by Mattiace must be limited to the duty it undertook, i.e., generally clean the space (not to include the substance), repair broken tile, and repair certain plumbing fixtures. Wagner did not allege that breach of any of these assumed duties caused her injuries. Even if Mattiace did gratuitously assume a duty to remove the substances from the Returns space, there is no evidence in the record indicating that either Lukacs or Wagner detrimentally relied on that voluntarily incurred duty. As is evident from his own testimony, Lukacs was aware that Mattiace did not intend to remove the substance from the time Mattiace had the broken tiles replaced, and he had two years from the time he learned this to the time of Wagner’s accident to remove the substance himself, as was his duty under the Lease, Sublease, and common law of this State. It can hardly be said that Lukacs changed his position to his detriment in reliance of Mattiace’s actions. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
