Titus, et al. v. Williams, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2001-CA-00921-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-01-2003 Opinion Author: Diaz, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wrongful death - Premises liability - Invitee, licensee, and trespasser distinctions - Constructive knowledge - Proximate cause - Reckless disregard - Section 11-46-9(1)(c) - Criminal activity Judge(s) Concurring: McRae and Smith, P.JJ., Waller, Cobb, Easley and Graves, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlson, J. Concurs in Result Only: Pittman, C.J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-07-2001 Appealed from: Panola County Circuit Court Judge: Andrew C. Baker Disposition: The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants. ¶3. The circuit court denied an interlocutory appeal, and final judgment was entered. Case Number: CV-98-99-BPL |
|
| Consolidated: 2001-CA-01653-SCT Milton Titus, Jr, Lucy Titus, Lucy Patricia Titus, Christopher Titus, Stephanie Titus and Renee Titus, The Wrongful Death Heirs and Beneficiaries of Milton Titus, III, Deceased v. The Town of Sardis, Mississippi; Panola Circuit Court 1st District; LC Case #: CV98-0099-BP1; Ruling Date: 10/01/2001; Ruling Judge: Andrew C. Baker | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Milton Titus, Jr., Lucy Titus, Lucy Patricia Titus, Christopher Titus, Stephanie Titus and Renee Titus, The Wrongful Death Heirs and Beneficiaries of Milton Titus, III, Deceased |
CARROLL RHODES
NATHANIEL ALANDAS ARMISTAD |
||
| Appellee: | Richard Don Williams and The Flash Store, Inc. | HOLLY STUBBLEFIELD MATHEWS JOHN S. HILL STEFFANIE ANNE GRAVES JAMES P. STREETMAN, III WILTON V. BYARS, JR. MITCHELL ORVIS DRISKELL |
|
|
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 - Premises liability - Invitee, licensee, and trespasser distinctions - Constructive knowledge - Proximate cause - Reckless disregard - Section 11-46-9(1)(c) - Criminal activity |
| Summary of the Facts: | Milton Titus, Jr., Lucy Titus, Lucy Patricia Titus, Christopher Titus, Stephanie Titus, and Renee Titus filed suit against Richard Williams, The Flash Store, Inc., and the Town of Sardis, seeking damages for the wrongful death of Milton Titus, III, who was killed by a third party on the Flash Store’s property. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment, all of which the court granted. The plaintiffs appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Premises liability The plaintiffs argue that the invitee, licensee, and trespasser distinctions should be replaced with a reasonable person standard in a premises liability action. In the case of Pinnell v. Bates, 838 So.2d 198 (Miss. 2002), the Supreme Court declined to abandon the invitee, licensee, and trespasser distinctions and again declines to do so. Issue 2: Constructive knowledge The plaintiffs argue that the Flash Store's and Williams's actual and/or constructive knowledge that an atmosphere of violence existed on the premises constituted active or affirmative negligence. The owner of premises is liable for injury proximately caused by the owner’s affirmative or active negligence in the operation or control of activities which subjects a licensee to unusual danger or increases the hazard to the licensee when the presence of the licensee is known. In this case, there is no evidence that Williams engaged in affirmative or active negligence in the operation or control of the business. The Flash Store, not Williams, operated and controlled the convenience store. Therefore, liability, if any, attaches to the Flash Store rather than Williams. The plaintiffs also argue that an atmosphere of violence existed on the Flash Store premises and that the owner knew this and did nothing to make the store safer. The negligence of the defendant must have been the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. Proximate cause is defined as the cause which in natural and continuous sequence unbroken by any efficient intervening cause produces the injury and without which the result would not have occurred. Here, the actions of Titus, in confronting a dangerous person, known by Titus to possess a gun which he was not afraid to use, was an intervening cause which relieved Williams and the Flash Store of their alleged liability. Any negligence by the Flash Store was passive at most. Titus’s status as invitee, licensee, or trespasser is irrelevant because the owner of the Flash Store owed no duty to warn him of a situation which he created himself and the danger of which he was well aware. Issue 3: Reckless disregard The plaintiffs argue that the police officers of the town of Sardis showed a reckless disregard for the safety of Titus and the general public on the night Titus was killed, because the police did not respond to the report of the first shooting promptly or adequately enough to prevent the second shooting when Titus was killed. Pursuant to section 11-46-9(1)(c), a government is exempt from liability for the performance of police duties unless the employees acted in reckless disregard for the safety and wellbeing of the plaintiff. Reckless disregard means the conscious indifference to consequences, amounting almost to a willingness that harm should follow. The record shows that the Sardis Police acted responsibly and within their discretion. Officers responded promptly when there was a confrontation at the Flash Store earlier in the evening of the shooting. The officers then instructed Titus to stay away from the Flash Store and to let them handle the situation. Titus disregarded these reasonable and proper instructions and returned to the Flash Store where he started a fight with a person whom Titus knew possessed a gun and apparently was not afraid to use it. Therefore, the court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the Town of Sardis. Issue 4: Criminal activity The defendants argue that the town is exempted from any possible liability to Titus because of he was involved in criminal activity, i.e., simple assault, disturbance in a public place, disturbance of the public peace by offensive language, and refusing to obey a police order. This issue is moot in light of the determination that the Sardis Police Department committed no negligence toward Titus and exhibited no reckless disregard for the safety and welfare of Titus or the general public. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
