Sullivan v. Skate Zone, Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-01797-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-16-2007 Opinion Author: KING, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Premises liability - Dangerous condition - Duty of reasonable care - Constructive knowledge Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): CARLTON, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-19-2005 Appealed from: LOWNDES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Lee J. Howard Disposition: THE TRIAL COURT GRANTED DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Case Number: 2004-0098-CV1 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | MICHELLE SULLIVAN AND JEFFREY SULLIVAN |
JULIE LYNN LOVE |
||
| Appellee: | SKATE ZONE, INC. | JASON RICHARD BUSH, WALKER (BILL) JONES |
|
|
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 - Premises liability - Dangerous condition - Duty of reasonable care - Constructive knowledge |
| Summary of the Facts: | After allegedly tripping on a toy, falling and breaking her arm at Skate Zone, a roller skating rink, Michelle Sullivan filed a premises liability lawsuit against Skate Zone. Her husband, Michael, submitted a claim for loss of consortium. Skate Zone filed a motion for summary judgment which the court granted. The Sullivans appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | In order for an invitee to succeed in a premises liability action, the invitee must either prove that a negligent act of the property owner caused the invitee’s injury or that a third party created a dangerous condition of which the property owner knew or should have known. Sullivan argues that Skate Zone breached its duty of keeping the premises in a reasonably safe condition by failing to prevent the toys distributed in the adjacent arcade from being thrown onto the rink. However, Sullivan does not argue that a Skate Zone employee actually caused the plastic object to be on the skating rink floor. Furthermore, the testimony of Skate Zone’s manager established that the rink had been inspected less than one hour prior to Sullivan’s fall, and that the manager continued to monitor the floor throughout the skating session. Sullivan also argues that Skate Zone was negligent for not having a floor guard on duty on the evening of her fall. Property owners owe invitees a duty to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition but are not insurers of invitees’ safety. The manager testified that he monitored the rink from a disc jockey booth that overlooks the rink and did not see any debris on the floor during the time frame in which Sullivan approximated that she fell. Furthermore, he testified that he personally inspected the floors fifteen minutes before Skate Zone reopened for its second session and approximately fifty minutes before Sullivan fell, and testified that the floors were still clean from being dust-mopped after the close of the earlier session. Thus, Sullivan failed to produce any roof that the object which caused her fall was on the rink because of any act or omission of Skate Zone. Sullivan also argues that the fact Skate Zone utilizes a floor guard to police the rink and pick up debris evidences the fact that Skate Zone was clearly on notice the rink floor is particularly susceptible to these objects being thrown on the floor. Sullivan is essentially presenting the “mode of operation” argument for premises liability which has been previously rejected by the Court. This theory is inconsistent with the well-established principle that property owners owe invitees a duty of reasonable care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition, not to ensure that the premises are completely risk-free. Because there is a total lack of evidence existed to determine how the plastic object came to be on the skating rink floor or how long it had been there, the trial court was also correct in granting summary judgment under the constructive knowledge theory of premises liability. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
