Massey v. Tingle, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-00870-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-04-2004 Opinion Author: Smith, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Premises liability - Duty to warn Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Waller, P.J., Cobb, Carlson and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Easley JJ. Dissenting Author : Graves, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-30-2002 Appealed from: Lowndes County Circuit Court Judge: Lee J. Howard Disposition: Granted Tingle's motion for summary judgment. Case Number: 99-130-CV-1 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Rhonda Massey |
JOHN W. BOLING
CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL FALGO |
||
| Appellee: | Ross Tingle d/b/a Columbus Speedway and John Does 1-5 | PATRICK H. ZACHARY |
|
|
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 - Premises liability - Duty to warn |
| Summary of the Facts: | Rhonda Massey attended a racing event at a dirt track leased by Ross Tingle doing business as Columbus Speedway. She signed a “Release and Waiver of Liability, Assumption of Risk and Indemnity Agreement” prior to entry. When an out-of-control race car struck the guardrail, the guardrail struck Massey, and she suffered serious injuries. She filed an action against Tingle. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Tingle. Massey appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Massey argues that Tingle constructed and maintained the guardrails in a defective and dangerous manner and condition and that Tingle failed to construct the guardrails of a material strong enough to sustain the weight placed upon them. However, Massey failed to come forward with any concrete evidence to support these claims. The bare statements regarding the guardrail in her complaint and response to Tingle’s motion for summary judgment are insufficient to withstand summary judgment. Massey also argues that Tingle failed to provide Massey a safe place to watch the race. However, she admitted that she was not instructed to watch the race from the area between the chain-link fence and the guardrail. In fact, she could have watched the race from the pit area or the grandstands. Massey also argues that Tingle negligently allowed her to be in an area that was unreasonably dangerous. Regardless of whether Massey is characterized as an invitee, licensee, or trespasser at the time she was injured after leaving the fenced-in area, there is no material fact issue as to whether Tingle made the premises reasonably safe. Clearly, the fenced-in pit area was reasonably safe, as evidenced by the fact that the out-of-control car which struck the guardrail did not enter the pit area. Nor is there any genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Tingle failed to warn Massey that the particular area of the premises where she was injured was very dangerous. The speeding cars were in plain and open view. The risk of injury increased when Massey left the fenced-in pit area to time the cars. Because Massey was in more danger after leaving the fenced-in area, and this danger was not hidden, but open and obvious, Tingle had no duty to warn even if he failed to make the premises reasonably safe. Even if Tingle had the duty to warn Massey, the document she executed gave sufficient warnings of the possible danger presented by the race, and she is charged with knowledge of those warnings. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
