Simpson v. Boyd
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-00425-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-26-2004 Opinion Author: Waller, P.J. Holding: Affirmed in Part; Reversed and Remanded in Part; and Vacated and Remanded in Part. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Premises liability - Atmosphere of violence - Negligence per se - Life Safety Code - Proximate causation - Legal malpractice Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Cobb, P.J., Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Graves, JJ. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Easley, J., Concurs in Part and Dissents in Part Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-28-2003 Appealed from: Washington County Circuit Court Judge: Richard Smith Disposition: Granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee. Case Number: CI-2001-204 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | CAROL RENEE SIMPSON |
CHARLES T. YOSTE
STEPHANIE L. MALLETTE |
||
| Appellee: | MICHAEL W. BOYD | GAINES S. DYER L. CARL HAGWOOD |
|
|
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: | Premises liability - Atmosphere of violence - Negligence per se - Life Safety Code - Proximate causation - Legal malpractice |
| Summary of the Facts: | Carol Simpson filed a complaint and civil action for damages against her former employer, attorney Michael Boyd, arising from injuries inflicted by an intruder while Simpson was at work. Simpson sued Boyd, claiming that Boyd's failure to provide a safe work environment was the proximate cause of her injuries, Boyd's failure to comply with city building codes constituted negligence per se, and Boyd negligently advised Simpson to file for bankruptcy without informing her of the possibility of bringing a lawsuit against himself or the attacker. The court granted summary judgment, and Simpson appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Premises liability Simpson argues that Boyd owed her a duty to provide a safe place to work and a duty to provide for her security. Although not an insurer of an invitee's safety, a premises owner owes a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the invitee from reasonably foreseeable injuries at the hands of another. Simpson's complaint attempts to prove foreseeability by establishing that an atmosphere of violence existed. Evidence of the existence of an atmosphere of violence may include the overall pattern of criminal activity prior to the event in question that occurred in the general vicinity of the defendant's business premises, as well as the frequency of criminal activity on the premises. Simpson has not presented facts sufficient to create a jury issue on the duty prong of a prima facie case of negligence. As proof of Boyd's constructive knowledge of the alleged violent atmosphere, Simpson offers evidence that an irate client and an acquaintance of a co-worker separately caused such a stir that the police had to be called, that a handful of verbal exchanges occurred between clients and Boyd, and that a couple of minor criminal instances occurred over a three-year period. Simpson has not demonstrated an overall pattern of criminal activity prior to the event in question that occurred in the general vicinity of the defendant's business premises nor has she demonstrated any frequency of criminal activity on the premises sufficient to establish an atmosphere of violence. Issue 2: Negligence per se Simpson argues that Boyd can be held liable for negligence per se under the City of Greenville's Life Safety Code, adopted as part of its Fire Prevention Code. Violation of a statute or ordinance constitutes negligence per se and will support a cause of action in tort where the plaintiff is within the class protected by the statute, and the harm sustained is the type sought to be prevented by the statute. However, the plaintiff must still show that the violation proximately caused the injury. The Life Safety Code was written with the intention of protecting parties from the resulting harm of fires and other emergencies. When confronted by the intruder, Simpson was faced with an emergency situation, and she alleges that the locked door with a copy machine in front of it blocked her only possible means of escape in violation of the Code. She meets the requirements for the duty and breach prongs based on negligence per se case because: the ordinance applies to buildings "designed for human occupancy" and therefore was meant to protect people in general; and the harm of emergency without means of escape which Simpson allegedly experienced was the type sought to be prevented by the Code. The proof presented by Simpson indicates that it may have been possible for Simpson to escape at one point and makes it clear that there are material facts in issue. Because Simpson has brought a claim for negligence per se which has outstanding questions of proximate causation, the court's decision to grant Boyd's motion for summary judgment on this issue is reversed. Issue 3: Legal malpractice The trial court failed to specifically address Simpson’s legal malpractice claim. Therefore, this decision is vacated and remanded on this issue. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
