Vaughn v. Ambrosino


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2002-CA-00927-COA
Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-00927-SCT ; 2002-CT-00927-SCT ; 2002-CT-00927-SCT ; 2002-CA-00927-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 11-18-2003
Opinion Author: Myers, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Personal injury - Jury instructions - Duty to invitee
Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., Southwick, P.J., Thomas, Lee, Chandler and Griffis, JJ.
Dissenting Author : King, P.J.
Dissent Joined By : Bridges and Irving, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 02-19-2002
Appealed from: Madison County Circuit Court
Judge: Samac Richardson
Disposition: VERDICT IN FAVOR OF APPELLEES
Case Number: CI 2000-139

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: RECE VAUGHN




JAMES L. POWELL RICHARD A. COURTNEY MATTHEW IVAN HETZEL



 

Appellee: RICHARD AMBROSINO AND ELLEN AMBROSINO STEPHEN L. THOMAS MARGARET OERTLING CUPPLES JAMES WILLIAM MANUEL  

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 - Jury instructions - Duty to invitee

Summary of the Facts: While employed as a full-time housekeeper at the Ambrosinos' residence, Rece Vaughn was seriously injured when she fell from a ladder while cleaning the twelve foot high kitchen cabinets. Vaughn sued the Ambrosinos seeking almost $2 million. A jury verdict in favor of the Ambrosinos was returned. Vaughn appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Vaughn argues that the court erred in instructing the jury. A jury instruction must contain a correct statement of the law and must be warranted by the evidence. Vaughn was an invitee on the Ambrosinos’ premises since Vaughn’s and the Ambrosinos’ situation provided both parties with advantages. The landowner's duty to an invitee is to take care that the property is reasonably safe and to warn the invitee of hidden dangers that are not plain and open. There is no duty to warn of dangers that should be obvious to the invitee. The instructions given by the court accurately conveys this law. The question is whether, by not restraining the dog, the Ambrosinos created a danger to Vaughn, their invitee, which was not readily apparent. Since Vaughn lived at the residence and had worked there for some time, the dog’s size and nature were familiar to her. There was even evidence that the dog had almost knocked over the ladder the night before. Therefore, the possibility of the dog knocking over the ladder was readily apparent to her on the day of the accident. In addition, Vaughn had a safer option, the extension handles, but chose to use the ladder instead. The jury instruction was therefore warranted given the evidence presented.


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