Mayfield v. The Hairbender
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-00471-SCT Linked Case(s): 2004-CA-00471-SCT ; 2004-CA-00471-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: |
Opinion Date: 03-10-2005 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: Affirmed in Part; Reversed and Remanded in Part |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Open and obvious danger - Failure to warn - Failure to maintain premises in reasonably safe condition Judge(s) Concurring: , C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson and Randolph, JJ., Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J Dissenting Author : Graves, J., Nature of the Case: Contract |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-06-2004 Appealed from: Calhoun County Circuit Court Judge: Andrew K. Howorth |
|
| Note: | No link | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Anita Mayfield |
|||
| Appellee: | The Hairbender |
|
||
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 - Open and obvious danger - Failure to warn - Failure to maintain premises in reasonably safe condition |
| Summary of the Facts: | While making a delivery to The Hairbender salon, Anita Mayfield tripped on uneven pavement and allegedly suffered injuries. Mayfield filed suit against The Hairbender, claiming that The Hairbender negligently failed to repair the pavement in the parking lot, negligently failed to adequately warn her of the broken pavement, and otherwise negligently caused her injuries. The Hairbender filed a motion for summary judgment which the court granted. Mayfield appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Mayfield argues that The Hairbender was negligent in its maintenance of the pavement and that it had a duty to warn her of the danger. An invitee may not recover for failure to warn of an open and obvious danger. The owner in charge of premises owes to an invitee or business visitor a duty of exercising reasonable or ordinary care to keep the premises in reasonably safe and suitable condition or of warning invitee of dangerous conditions not readily apparent which owner knows or should know of in the exercise of reasonable care. The uneven pavement outside of The Hairbender was an open and obvious danger. Mayfield admitted as much and that she was aware of the broken pavement and knew she needed to be careful when she walked over it. Therefore, The Hairbender may not be held liable for failing to warn Mayfield about the uneven pavement. However, the duty to warn of a dangerous condition does not eliminate the duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether The Hairbender negligently failed to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition. Therefore, summary judgment to the extent it applied to Mayfield’s claim of a failure to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition was improper and is reversed. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
