Gammel v. Tate County Sch. Dist.
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-01489-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-25-2008 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wrongful death - Duty of care - Continuance - M.R.C.P. 56(f) Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Carlton, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-20-2007 Appealed from: TATE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Andrew C. Baker Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR APPELLEE Case Number: CV-2005-43BT |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | DEWAYNE GAMMEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF ANTHONY W. GAMMEL DECEASED |
PHILIP ANDREW STROUD |
|
|
| Appellee: | TATE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT | WILTON V. BYARS, DINETIA BROOKE NEWMAN | ||
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: | Wrongful death - Duty of care - Continuance - M.R.C.P. 56(f) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Anthony Gammel planned on attending the Winter Carnival at East Tate Elementary School, but was tragically stuck by an oncoming motorist while crossing East Tate Road in Tate County and died. DeWayne Gammel, individually and on behalf of other beneficiaries, filed a wrongful death suit. Although Tate County School District was not initially named in the suit, it was later added by amended complaint. Over two years after Gammel’s initial complaint was filed, the District moved for summary judgment which the court granted. Gammel appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | One basis for the trial court’s grant of summary judgment was that the District did not owe the decedent any duty of care at the time of the accident. Gammel argues that the trial court erred in holding as such, because the decedent was an invitee and the District owed the decedent a duty to provide a safe environment. The decedent parked in an area he was not invited to use and attempted to cross a public road hoping to arrive at the Winter Carnival. Therefore, as the trial court held, the decedent was trespassing when he chose to park in the bus parking lot. While the decedent enjoyed the status of trespasser at the time he parked his vehicle, when he stepped off the bus parking lot onto East Tate Road he lost this status. As such, Gammel is unable to establish a question of fact as to whether the District owed the decedent any duty whatsoever at the time of the accident. Gammel also argues that the trial court erred in denying his M.R.C.P. 56(f) motion requesting a continuance. When a Rule 56(f) continuance is requested, the trial court, if it finds the reasons offered to be sufficient, has the discretion to postpone consideration of the motion for summary judgment and order among other things that discovery be completed. Rule 56(f) is not designed to protect the litigants who are lazy or dilatory and normally the party invoking Rule 56(f) must show what steps have been taken to obtain access to the information allegedly within the possession of the other party. At the time the District filed its motion for summary judgment, it had been a defendant for over one year, and Gammel’s initial complaint was filed over two years prior to the District’s motion. During that time, Gammel requested, at best, one deposition. Therefore, the record does not support a finding that trial court abused its discretion in denying Gammel’s motion for a continuance. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
