Scott v. City of Goodman
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-01403-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-01403-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-16-2008 Opinion Author: BARNES, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Tort Claims Act - Premises liability - Duty to invitee - Pattern of criminal activity - Sufficiency of pleading - M.R.C.P. 8(a) - Reckless disregard Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Ishee, Roberts, and Carlton, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial; Dismissal; Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-27-2007 Appealed from: Holmes County Circuit Court Judge: Jannie M. Lewis Disposition: DISMISSED COMPLAINT AGAINST OFFICER MELVIN WILLIAMS, GRANTED DICKERSON PETROLEUM’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND FOLLOWING A BENCH TRIAL, ENTERED JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF CITY OF GOODMAN Case Number: 2003-147 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | RANDY SCOTT |
MARSHALL E. SANDERS |
||
| Appellee: | CITY OF GOODMAN, MISSISSIPPI, DICKERSON PETROLEUM, INC. D/B/A BP CONVENIENCE AND SERVICE STATION AND MELVIN WILLIAMS | DANIEL J. GRIFFITH, JAN F. GADOW, THOMAS Y. PAGE |
|
|
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 - Tort Claims Act - Premises liability - Duty to invitee - Pattern of criminal activity - Sufficiency of pleading - M.R.C.P. 8(a) - Reckless disregard |
| Summary of the Facts: | Randy Scott filed a complaint alleging that Dickerson Petroleum, Inc. d/b/a BP Convenience and Service Station breached its duty to protect Scott from, or had negligently caused, a physical attack by Officer Melvin Williams, an on-duty police officer of the City of Goodman, on Dickerson Petroleum’s property. Scott subsequently amended his complaint to add Officer Williams and the City of Goodman as defendants. Following discovery, Officer Williams was granted summary judgment. Dickerson Petroleum also filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted. Following a bench trial which resulted in a final judgment in favor of the City of Goodman, Scott appealed. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Scott argues that the trial judge erred in granting summary judgment to Dickerson Petroleum, the owner of the premises where the shooting occurred. Due to his status as an invitee, Scott argues that Dickerson Petroleum owed him a duty of reasonable care to protect him from an unlawful attack by a third party. As a customer of the BP store, it is undisputed that Scott was an invitee at the time of the incident. Therefore, Dickerson Petroleum, as the owner of the premises, owed a duty to Scott to exercise reasonable care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition. In order to establish legal causation, or foreseeability, in cases of assault by a third person, one must show actual or constructive knowledge of the assailant’s violent nature, or actual or constructive knowledge that an atmosphere of violence exists on the premises. Scott maintains that as Dickerson Petroleum was aware of the frequent criminal activity at their store, they owed him a duty to protect him from other patrons. Scott has not sufficiently demonstrated any overall pattern of criminal activity prior to the event in question, nor has he demonstrated any frequency of criminal activity on the premises sufficient to establish an atmosphere of violence. Even if there were sufficient evidence to prove an atmosphere of violence, Officer Williams was not just another patron; he was a duly-appointed law enforcement officer. It is not reasonable to claim that Dickerson Petroleum could have foreseen that a uniformed, on-duty police officer would be a danger or threat to a patron in its store. Scott also argues that Officer Williams’s use of deadly force was unwarranted in the situation and constituted reckless disregard for the safety of Scott. The City of Goodman argues that the issue is procedurally barred as Scott failed to specifically set forth this law enforcement exception claim in his appeal. Plaintiffs are bound by what is alleged in the complaint, absent a subsequent amendment or modification. Even under the liberal pleading requirements of M.R.C.P. 8(a), a plaintiff must set forth factual allegations, either direct or inferential, respecting each material element necessary to sustain recovery under some actionable legal theory. Although Scott’s complaint did not specifically track the language of the statute, Officer Williams and the City of Goodman were aware of which statute and legal standard under which they were being charged. Reckless disregard embraces willful or wanton conduct which requires knowingly and intentionally doing a thing or wrongful act. Scott’s own expert witness admitted in his pretrial affidavit, that Officer Williams’s shooting of Scott was only negligent. Under the tense circumstances outlined at trial and in the record, the trial judge did not err in finding that, based on the totality of the circumstances, Officer Williams’s conduct was a reasonable reaction to what he perceived to be a potentially dangerous situation. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
