Alqasim v. Capitol City Hotel Investors, LLC


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2007-CA-00531-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-26-2008
Opinion Author: Lee, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Personal injury - Premises liability - Duty of reasonable care - Third-party beneficiary
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., yers, P.J., Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts,, JJ.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 02-20-2007
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: Bobby DeLaughter
Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES
Case Number: 251-04-68CIV

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: MAUYAD "MIKE" ALQASIM




DEREK L. HALL



 

Appellee: CAPITOL CITY HOTEL INVESTORS, LLC D/B/A HAMPTON INN NORTH AND SECURITY ONE, INC. MELTON JAMES WEEMS, ROY A. SMITH, TARA STRICKLAND CLIFFORD, MICHAEL J. TARLETON, SHANDA L. LEWIS  

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 reasonable care - Third-party beneficiary

Summary of the Facts: Mauyad “Mike” Alqasim filed a complaint against Capitol City Hotel Investors, Inc., the owner and operator of Hampton Inn North, after he was robbed and shot in the parking lot of the Hampton Inn. Security One, Inc., an independent contractor hired by Hampton Inn to provide security, was later added as a defendant. Hampton Inn and Security One filed motions for summary judgment which the court granted. Alqasim appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Alqasim argues that the trial court’s finding of a lack of causation between the alleged breach of duty and his injury was in error, and summary judgment was not appropriate. As a paying guest of the hotel, Alqasim’s status when he was injured was that of an invitee. An invitee is one who enters the premises of another in answer to the express or implied invitation of the owner or occupant for their mutual advantage. Thus, Hampton Inn owed Alqasim a duty of reasonable care to protect him from attacks by third parties while on its premises. Since the contract to provide security services was between Security One and Hampton Inn, Alqasim must first be deemed to be a third-party beneficiary to the contract before liability is found against Security One. The right of a third party to a contract to maintain an action must spring from the terms of the contract itself. One of Security One’s duties under the contract was to protect guests of Hampton Inn. As a guest of Hampton Inn, Alqasim was a third-party beneficiary to the contract with Security One. In the hour prior to the assault, the parking lot had been patrolled three times, as required by standard operating procedures. There was no breach by Security One of its duty to have a security guard make three rounds per hour in the parking lot. Further, Alqasim cannot show that more patrols per hour would have prevented him from being robbed. Security One did not owe a duty to Alqasim beyond the terms and conditions of its security contract. Also, there is no genuine issue of material fact with regard to whether Hampton Inn acted negligently. Alqasim has not shown that if the security was somehow different, the incident would not have occurred.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court