Lawrence v. Wright, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-01103-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-CT-01103-SCT ; 2003-CA-01103-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-24-2004 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - “Natural condition” rule - Remote part of premises - Knowledge of danger Judge(s) Concurring: Bridges, P.J., Lee, Myers and Chandler, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Irving and Barnes, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: King, C.J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-14-2003 Appealed from: Tishomingo County Circuit Court Judge: Thomas J. Gardner Disposition: DEFENDANTS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WERE GRANTED AND PLAINTIFFS CASE WAS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Case Number: 00-0099GT |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Audra Faye Lawrence and Robert Lawrence |
PHIL R. HINTON |
||
| Appellee: | Angie Wright and Wayne Robinson, (Individually and d/b/a R & W Salvage Grocery), and Donnie B. Johnson, Individually and Severally | MITCHELL ORVIS DRISKELL WILTON V. BYARS BILLY BRONSON TABLER |
|
|
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 - “Natural condition” rule - Remote part of premises - Knowledge of danger |
| Summary of the Facts: | Audra Lawrence slipped on a patch of ice in a parking lot and broke her leg. Lawrence sued the owners of the business and the owner of the parking lot to recover monetary damages for her injuries. The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and Lawrence appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Lawrence argues that the summary judgment was not proper. This case falls squarely within the “natural condition” rule that was addressed in Fulton v. Robinson Indus., Inc. 664 So.2d 170, 175 (Miss. 1995). If an invitee is injured by a natural condition on a part of the business that is immediately adjacent to its major entrance and exit, then there is a jury question as to the openness and the obviousness of the danger. If an invitee is injured by a natural condition on a remote part of the business premises, and the danger was known and appreciated by the injured party, then there is no jury question. Lawrence was a business invitee and was injured by a natural condition. Lawrence argues that since she was parked in the first row of the parking lot, she was not on a remote part of the premises. However, she fell at least twenty to twenty-five feet from the designated walkway, which is at least thirty-five feet from the entrance of the business. This was a remote part of the business premises. Lawrence also argues that there is no evidence in the record that would establish her knowledge of the danger. However, ice in a parking lot, which existed several days after a winter storm, was a natural condition that Lawrence could have expected to encounter. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
