Evans v. Hodge
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-00527-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-00527-COA ; 2007-CT-00527-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-19-2008 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Premises liability - Duty of care - Status of visitor - Restatement (Second) of Torts § 332 cmt. (g) Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Ishee, Roberts, and Carlton, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-06-2006 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED TO DEFENDANT. Case Number: 251-01-740 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | DIANE EVANS |
ALMA WALLS |
||
| Appellee: | BONNIE HODGE | WILLIAM M. VINES |
|
|
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 of care - Status of visitor - Restatement (Second) of Torts § 332 cmt. (g) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Diane Evans sued Bonnie Hodge for negligence after she slipped and fell on Hodge’s doorstep. The trial court granted Hodge’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice. Evans appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The level of the duty of care Hodge, the property owner, owed Evans, the injured party, is dependent on Evans’s legal status. A landowner owes the licensee the mere duty to refrain from willful or wanton injury to the licensee. A landowner owes an invitee the higher standard of keeping the premises reasonably safe and when not reasonably safe to warn only where there is hidden danger or peril that is not plain and open to view. Evans argues that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether she was an invitee or a licensee at the time of the accident. She also argues that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Hodge breached her duty to Evans to warn her about the icy doormat. There is a genuine issue of material fact regarding Evans’s legal status. Evans was delivering mail to Hodge’s sister, Betty Russell, who was temporarily living with Hodge because Russell’s house in Jackson had recently burned down. Russell, who does not drive due to her impaired vision, made arrangements with Evans, her next door neighbor in Jackson, to pick up her mail. Usually, Hodge drove to Jackson and retrieved Russell’s mail from Evans. On the day at issue, however, for the first time, Evans drove to Hodge’s home to deliver the mail to Russell, because Evans believed Russell had received mail she was expecting from an insurance company. If Russell is found to be an invitee of Hodge, this determination will impact Evans’s legal status in relation to Hodge. However, the evidence presented in the record is insufficient to determine the legal status of Russell in relation to Hodge. Evans’s and Russell’s legal statuses are determined by whether a “mutual advantage” was present and between whom. Regarding how Russell’s status impacts Evans’s status, the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 332 cmt. (g) explains that the visitor does not have to be upon the property for the sole purpose of the possessor’s business to be considered an “invitee,” but the visit may be for the convenience or arise out of the necessities of others who are themselves upon the land for such a purpose. Additionally, while members of the possessor’s family are usually deemed licensees, they will be considered invitees if they pay board or give other valuable consideration for their stay on the possessor’s land. Russell could be conferred invitee status due to a possible business relationship with the possessor/landowner, such as if she were paying rent during her stay with Hodge. Thus, any interactions Russell had with Evans for Russell’s convenience or necessity could confer this same invitee status upon Evans. Since the record is devoid of evidence regarding whether Russell was paying valuable consideration to Hodge for her stay, summary judgment is inappropriate at this point in the action. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
