Magnusen v. Pine Belt Inv. Corp.
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-01235-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-04-2007 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Premises liability - Duty owed to invitee - Criminal activity Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: Negligence |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-25-2006 Appealed from: PEARL RIVER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Michael R. Eubanks Disposition: CIRCUIT COURT GRANTED DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Case Number: 2004-0437 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | BRANDY MAGNUSEN |
CATOUCHE JUDGE BODY |
||
| Appellee: | PINE BELT INVESTMENT CORPORATION | L. CLARK HICKS |
|
|
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 - Duty owed to invitee - Criminal activity |
| Summary of the Facts: | Brandy Magnusen sued Pine Belt Investment Corporation after she was attacked at a Burger King franchise owned and operated by Pine Belt. Pine Belt filed a motion for summary judgment which the court granted. Magnusen appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Magnusen argues that Pine Belt was liable for her injuries because Pine Belt failed to provide adequate security for her and because a pattern of criminal activity existed in the general vicinity of the premises. To prove that the court should not have granted Pine Belt’s motion for summary judgment, Magnusen had to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the fact that Pine Belt owed her a duty, Pine Belt breached that duty, damages, and a causal connection between the breach and the damages, such that the breach is the proximate cause of her injuries. There is no factual dispute that Magnusen was on the premises of Burger King as a drive-through customer. As such, Magnusen was an invitee. A premises owner owes an invitee a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect an invitee from reasonably foreseeable injury at the hands of another. An act may be considered reasonably foreseeable if the premises owner had cause to anticipate the third party act. When determining whether a defendant had actual or constructive knowledge that an atmosphere of violence existed, pertinent factors for consideration are the overall pattern of criminal activity prior to the event in question that occurred in the general vicinity of the defendant’s business premises, and the frequency of criminal activity on the premises. The circuit court considered Magnusen’s deposition and sixteen police reports from 1998 until Magnusen’s attack in August of 2003. Magnusen said she was unaware of any prior criminal activity at Burger King. As for those sixteen police reports, four of them involved crimes against employees. Three other police reports involved theft from Burger King. Other police reports detailed random crimes committed at or around Burger King. Three reported incidents involved assaults on one particular employee which the employee later confessed that he fabricated. Two more reports involve lost purses by customers. One report involved an assault on a customer in the drive-through line. While there is proof that some crimes occurred on Burger King’s property, only one of those crimes could be considered violent. Accordingly, there is no genuine issue of material fact that this attack on Magnusen was not reasonably foreseeable by Pine Belt and Pine Belt owed Magnusen no duty to protect her from that unforeseeable attack. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
