Blount v. Pantry, Inc.
Docket Number: | 2005-CA-00531-COA | |
Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-22-2006 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Duty to business invitees - Discovery Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, IRVING, CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-11-2005 Appealed from: MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Samac Richardson Disposition: DISMISSED Case Number: 2004-0270 |
Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
Appellant: | OLLIE BLOUNT |
JON H. POWELL |
||
Appellee: | THE PANTRY, INC. | EDWARD J. CURRIE, JR., THOMAS H. ELLER, III |
|
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 business invitees - Discovery |
Summary of the Facts: | While drinking coffee in the dining area of a Kangaroo convenience store, Ollie Blount was injured when an ice machine was pushed through the glass storefront and struck Blount. Blount filed a complaint against the store’s owner, The Pantry, Inc., for its negligent failure to provide adequate protective barriers along the glass storefront. The Pantry filed a motion to dismiss which the court granted. Blount appeals. |
Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The trial court specifically relied on two cases, Carpenter v. Stop-NGo Markets of Georgia, Inc., 512 So. 2d 708 (Miss. 1987), and Heard v. Intervest Corporation, 856 So. 2d 359 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003), as establishing the principle that business owners do not have a duty to protect invitees from the type of harm that caused Blount’s injuries. Blount argues that to hold that Carpenter and Heard apply to every factual situation where a person such as Blount is injured will provide owners and operators of convenience stores and apartment complexes (and restaurants and other retail and service oriented places of business) a complete disincentive to provide adequate protective barriers to protect their invitees or to identify or remedy dangerous conditions. However, based on the authority of Carpenter and Heard, the trial court was correct to find that there was no set of facts that Blount may prove to establish his claim of negligence and to dismiss Blount’s complaint. Blount also argues that the court’s dismissal was premature because no discovery had been conducted. Because The Pantry owed no duty to Blount, discovery would not have created a duty that would have allowed his claim to succeed. The trial judge correctly determined from the face of the complaint that the plaintiff could prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court