Ballard v. Watkins
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-00832-COA Linked Case(s): 2004-CA-00832-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-30-2006 Opinion Author: KING, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Business invitee - Constructive knowledge of dangerous condition Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-16-2004 Appealed from: NOXUBEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Lee J. Howard Disposition: DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED. Case Number: 2000-183 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | ORA MAE BALLARD |
BENNIE L. JONES |
||
| Appellee: | JAMES WATKINS, INDIVIDUALLY, D/B/A VILLAGE CENTER | J. NILES MCNEEL |
|
|
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 - Business invitee - Constructive knowledge of dangerous condition |
| Summary of the Facts: | Ora Ballard filed suit against James Watkins, Individually d/b/a Village Center, after falling and injuring herself at a laundromat owned by Watkins. The court entered summary judgment in favor of Watkins, and Ballard appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Ballard went to the laundromat as a patron, and is therefore considered a business invitee for purposes of a premises liability analysis. Every property owner owes to invitees a duty of reasonable care in keeping his premises in a reasonably safe condition, or otherwise to warn invitees of unobvious dangerous conditions of which the owner knows or should know. Ballard did not allege that Watkins committed a negligent act that resulted in her injuries, nor that Watkins had actual knowledge of the soda can’s existence in the parking lot. Constructive knowledge exists where a dangerous condition exists for such a length of time that an owner exercising reasonable care should be alerted to its presence. Since Ballard presented no direct nor circumstantial evidence as to the length of time the drink can had been in the parking lot, there was no genuine issue of material fact that Watkins had constructive knowledge of the can’s presence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
