Ray v. Blockbuster, Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-00744-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-00744-SCT2007-CA-00744-COA2007-CT-00744-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 03-27-2008 | |
* 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: 11-04-2008 Opinion Author: ISHEE, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Liability of lessee - Incidental property Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Chandler, and Barnes, JJ. Dissenting Author : Griffis, J., with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : Roberts and Carlton, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-23-2007 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT ENTERED IN FAVOR OF BLOCKBUSTER Case Number: 251-03-1066 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | KATHY VIRGINIA RAY |
MICHAEL RICHARD BROWN,
ROGEN K. CHHABRA |
||
| Appellee: | BLOCKBUSTER, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, AND CRYSTAL ADAMS, INDIVIDUALLY | REBECCA B. COWAN, EDWARD J. CURRIE, DENISE WESLEY |
|
|
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 - Liability of lessee - Incidental property |
| Summary of the Facts: | Kathy Ray filed a negligence claim against the owner of a Blockbuster franchise – Crystal Adams; the parent company of the franchise where she was injured – Blockbuster, Inc.; and the company that managed the development where the franchise was located – Madison Development. Madison settled with Ray during the early stages of litigation, leaving only Blockbuster and Adams as defendants. Blockbuster filed a motion for summary judgment which the court granted. Ray appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Ray argues that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Blockbuster and Adams. The question in this case is under what circumstances, if any, a lessee may potentially be held liable to a third party for injuries sustained on property incidental to, but not on, the leased property. Here, the leased property consists of the building space leased by the Blockbuster franchise; the incidental property consists of the parking lot where Ray was injured. The third party in this case is Ray, a business invitee. Liability can be imposed on a lessee for injuries sustained by invitees, regardless of the contractual relationship between the lessor and the lessee, so long as the lessee exercised some degree of possession and control over the property. In this case, Blockbuster leased space in a retail development from Madison. The development contained a parking lot, which was made available for use by the patrons and employees of the several businesses leasing space in the development, including Blockbuster. The lease agreement between Blockbuster and Madison provided that Madison was responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the parking lot. However, an amendment to the lease also provided Blockbuster with a right to erect a sign in the parking lot. Additionally, the lease required Blockbuster to carry its own insurance covering accidents or occurrences on “the demised premises, the sidewalks adjoining the same[,] and other areas of the shopping center.” Blockbuster was further required to defend suits arising from its acts or negligence stemming from its rights in the parking lot and from suits “arising from the conduct or management of the business conducted by [Blockbuster].” Furthermore, the accident did not occur in a remote area of the parking lot. The defect in the parking lot existed within twenty feet of the store. The appellees also admitted that the defect had existed in front of the store for over a month. However, they claimed that they had notified Madison, which, according to the lease, was responsible for repairing any defects in the parking lot. Thus, Ray presented sufficient evidence to create a question of material fact for a jury to determine whether Blockbuster exercised the requisite possession and control over the parking lot to create a duty to warn its customers of a known dangerous condition in the parking lot directly in front of the store’s entrance. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
