Doe v. Wright Security Servs., Inc.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-CA-02198-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-06-2007
Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J.
Holding: Reversed and Remanded

Additional Case Information: Topic: Personal injury - Negligence - Duty - Breach of duty - Foreseeability
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 09-28-2005
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: W. Swan Yerger
Disposition: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED.
Case Number: 251-99-643CIV

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: JIM DOE, A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, MARY DOE




RICK D. PATT, SHANE F. LANGSTON, REBECCA M. LANGSTON, G. JOSEPH DIAZ, JR.



 

Appellee: WRIGHT SECURITY SERVICES, INC. JOEL W. HOWELL, 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 - Negligence - Duty - Breach of duty - Foreseeability

Summary of the Facts: Jim Doe, through his mother and next friend Mary Doe, brought this action for personal injuries against Wright Security Services, Inc. Doe was sexually assaulted by another student when the guards hired to monitor problem students at a bus stop allowed him to go unescorted to a McDonald’s to use the restroom. The court entered a summary judgment in favor of Wright. Doe appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Doe argues that Wright had a duty to protect him, because the guards were hired to prevent children from leaving the drop off location alone and were not to leave the premises themselves until all children had been picked up by their parents. Doe was required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Wright owed him a duty of care, Wright breached that duty, and this breach proximately caused Doe’s damages. The undisputed facts indicate that Wright contracted with the school system to provide security services for the alternative school students at the bus stop. Thus, as a matter of law, Wright obligated itself to a duty to protect the alternative school students, including Doe. Based on the evidence submitted in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, one purpose of Wright’s contract was to prevent violence or altercations among the alternative school students. Not only does this tend to make the incident foreseeable, but it shows as a matter of law that Wright owed a duty to minimize risks to Doe’s safety. In granting the summary judgment, the trial court applied premises liability law. However, this is not a premises liability case. There is no claim that Doe was injured as a result of a dangerous or defective condition at the bus stop. Instead, the duties of care result from Wright’s contract with the school system to provide security services at the bus stop for the students attending the alternative school. There was evidence that this duty had been breached. Doe testified that the guards would let the students go to McDonald’s to get something to eat. All the children had to do was ask permission, and they were allowed to go. The purpose of Wright’s presence at the bus stop was to reduce or eliminate violence by the students who attended the alternative school. Wright had a duty to control the conduct of both the victim and the attacker. This was precisely the type of conduct that the school system attempted to prevent when it hired Wright to provide supplemental security at this bus stop. Thus, there was a genuine issue of material fact in dispute as to whether Wright breached the legal duties that were owed. Wright argues that the sexual assault was unforeseeable, because there was no history of crimes at the bus stop and no history of sexual crimes against minors at the bus stop. There was testimony that one of the reasons Wright was there was to prevent violence among the students and in fact there had been a history of fighting at the bus stop and on the bus. There was also evidence that the victim and the accuser had separate histories of altercations. This evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Doe’s injuries were foreseeable.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court