Nelson v. Sanderson Farms, Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-00326-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-00326-COA2005-CT-00326-SCT2005-CT-00326-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 06-07-2006 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-15-2006 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Duty of premises owner Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-19-2005 Appealed from: Jones County Circuit Court Judge: Billy Joe Landrum Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR APPELLEE Case Number: 2002-97-CV12 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | GARY D. NELSON AND SHEREE NELSON |
LEONARD B. MELVIN, PETER S. MACKEY, WILLIAM MITCHELL CUNNINGHAM |
||
| Appellee: | SANDERSON FARMS, INC. | RICHARD O. BURSON, RICHARD A. FOLLIS |
|
|
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 - Duty of premises owner |
| Summary of the Facts: | Gary Nelson, and his wife under a loss of consortium claim, sued Sanderson Farms, Inc., alleging that Sanderson Farms, Inc. failed to provide a safe place to work and warn him of a dangerous condition. By agreement of all parties, Sanderson Farms, Inc. was dismissed and replaced by Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Processing Division). Sanderson Farms filed a motion for summary judgment which the court granted. Nelson appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Nelson argues that the lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Sanderson Farms was in error. The court granted the motion on the grounds that Nelson’s injury was intimately connected or arose from the work they were hired to perform and that Nelson knew of the potential danger. Nelson arrived at Sanderson Farms’ processing facility as an employee of Paul Przeracki d/b/a Cobra Industrial. Sanderson Farms hired Cobra as an independent contractor to repair a leak in an underground air pipe which supplied air to a waste-water aeration basin. Nelson was injured when a wheel rolled over his fingers, causing substantial damage to Nelson’s left hand, and eventual amputation of three fingers. A premises owner has no duty to protect independent contractors, or employees of the independent contractor, from dangers intimately connected with defects which the contractor has undertaken to repair. Under the “intimately connected” exception, what is critical is whether the project owner maintains any right of control over the performance of that aspect of the work that has given rise to the injury. Under most situations, the contract language is of utmost import in this regard, but if the plaintiff can show that, notwithstanding the contract, the premises owner maintained substantial de facto control over those features of the work out of which the injury arose, the premises owner’s duty is resurrected. In the case at hand, the contract between Cobra and Sanderson Farms explicitly gave control over suppling all “labor, materials, equipment, supplies, facilities, transportation, and supervision necessary to pumpout water out of 12" pipe . . .” to Cobra and provided a fixed, lump sum cost to Sanderson Farms for the services. Additionally, the record indicates that Cobra had full control over the way in which the job was to be completed, and no one from Sanderson Farms was contractually charged with the responsibility of supervising the operation. However, as the Nelsons point out, the contract is silent as to which party maintained control over the bridge’s operation, and it is safe to assume that Sanderson Farms retained the control it already possessed. On the other hand, testimony was given indicating that Sanderson Farms may have given Cobra some control over the bridge. Therefore, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Sanderson Farms retained substantial control over the job site. The trial court’s second basis for granting Sanderson Farm’s motion for summary judgment is that Nelson knew the potential danger posed by the bridge, and, therefore, Sanderson Farms cannot be held liable. A premises owner has a duty to warn of unknown dangers. Any knowledge of dangers on the part of the independent contractor is deemed to be known by the contractor’s employees as well. If the bridge was halted while the Cobra crew was working, which is assumed given Nelson’s testimony and the pertinent standard of review, the danger created by the bridge was also halted, and Sanderson Farms’ duty to warn would be renewed if a Sanderson employee restarted it, as at that point in time the bridge’s movement would have been an unknown danger. Therefore, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the bridge was shut down and restarted unbeknownst to Nelson and whether or not a de-energized bridge, under the circumstances present, represented a hidden danger about which Sanderson Farms had a duty to warn before re-energizing. These issues are properly jury issues. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
