Green v. Allendale Planting Co., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-02271-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-26-2007 Opinion Author: EASLEY, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Timeliness of appellate brief - M.R.A.P. 2(a)(2) - Summary judgment - Reasonably safe work environment - Warning of dangers - Defective design - Assumption of risk Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER, P.J., CARLSON AND DICKINSON, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: RANDOLPH, J. CONCURS IN PART. GRAVES, J. IN PART Non Participating Judge(s): COBB, P.J. Dissenting Author : GRAVES, J. Dissent Joined By : DIAZ AND RANDOLPH, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-29-2005 Appealed from: Bolivar County Circuit Court Judge: Larry O. Lewis Disposition: Granted summary judgment in favor of defendants |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | LARRY GREEN |
ELLIS TURNAGE |
||
| Appellee: | ALLENDALE PLANTING COMPANY AND THE KBH CORPORATION | TIMOTHY MICHAEL PEEPLES WILTON V. BYARS, III CHARLES S. HEWINS LAWRENCE D. WADE |
|
|
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 - Timeliness of appellate brief - M.R.A.P. 2(a)(2) - Summary judgment - Reasonably safe work environment - Warning of dangers - Defective design - Assumption of risk |
| Summary of the Facts: | Larry Green filed an action against his employer, Allendale Planting Company and the KBH Corporation for injuries he sustained while attempting to determine the cause of an unusual noise he heard while operating a mule boy, owned by his employer, Allendale, and manufactured by KBH. The defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The trial court originally granted summary judgment in part to both defendants. The defendants filed a Motion to Reconsider, and the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of both defendants on all issues. Green appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Timeliness of appellate brief Green timely filed notice of his appeal but later filed a motion for an extension of time to file his appellate brief. The Court granted the extension and explicitly stated that Green’s appellate brief was due on June 21, 2006. Allendale and KBH argue that the certificate of service on Green’s brief reflects that he did not file his brief until June 23, 2006, two days after the deadline. Although Green’s brief was filed after the deadline, the Court never gave him notice of the alleged default. Additionally, Green’s brief was filed only two days after the deadline, and according to M.R.A.P. 2(a)(2), well within the fourteen days the Court gives a party to correct a deficiency. Therefore, Green’s appeal will not be dismissed. Issue 2: Summary judgment Green argues that there are genuine issues of material fact that should be resolved by the jury. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Allendale because as a matter of law, Allendale did not breach its duty to provide Green with a reasonably safe work environment, fail to warn or instruct him of the dangers associated with the mule boy, or provide him with a reasonably safe work tool. Green offers no evidence to support his claim that Allendale failed to provide him with a reasonably safe work environment. In fact, his sworn deposition testimony defeats his claim against Allendale. During his deposition, Green admitted that the mule boy was only approximately three to four weeks old. Green also acknowledged that he inspected and performed the general maintenance of lubricating the metering chains attached to the mule boy every day. The facts clearly indicate that Allendale was merely an employer who purchased a mule boy. There is no evidence within the record to indicate that Allendale performed any acts or omissions that created an unsafe workplace for Green. Green argues that Allendale failed to warn, train, or instruct him as to the dangers associated with operating the mule boy in the non-dumping position and those dangers disclosed in the manufacturer’s manual. Green needed no warning to understand the danger of coming into close proximity with the moving chains attached to the mule boy. Green was an experienced farm hand and testified that he thoroughly understood the dangers associated with operating and repairing farm equipment. He operated the mule boy daily and performed the required maintenance to the machine. Thus, it is highly likely that Green had more knowledge about the mule boy than his employer. Green argues that Allendale provided him with a mule boy that had a defective design because it lacked a safety guard to cover the moving chains attached to the mule boy. The Mississippi Products Liability Act does not provide a cause of action for defective design against an employer who merely purchased a product. Green also argues that there exists a genuine issue of a material fact about whether he assumed the risk of his injuries. Assumption of the risk applies where a person freely and voluntarily chose to encounter a dangerous condition. In the absence of evidence that the injured person knew of the danger, or that the danger was so obvious that he must be taken to have known of it, it cannot be held that he assumed the risk of injury therefrom. Green admitted in his deposition testimony that he had knowledge and appreciated the dangerous condition of the mule boy. He testified in his deposition that he knew if he got too close, he would be pulled into the moving chains. Yet, he ignored the danger and approached the running mule boy. Green testified that he lost his balance when he tried to squat down; he then slipped. When he tried to keep from falling, he put out his hand to catch himself. His hand was grabbed by the machine, and he was injured. Given the evidence, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Allendale Planting Company and The KBH Corporation. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
