Pigg v. Express Hotel Partners, LLC
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-01801-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-02-2008 Opinion Author: DICKINSON, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER AND DIAZ, P.JJ., EASLEY, CARLSON, GRAVES,
RANDOLPH AND LAMAR, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-01-2007 Appealed from: Clay County Circuit Court Judge: Lee J. Howard Disposition: The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. Case Number: 2005-0218 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | BRIEAH S. PIGG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF GARRETT KADE PIGG, A MINOR |
VICTORIA HARDY RUNDLETT,
B. STEVENS HAZARD |
|
|
| Appellee: | EXPRESS HOTEL PARTNERS, LLC d/b/a HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS | DAVID L. SANDERS, ROSAMOND H. POSEY |
|
|
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. |
|
| Summary of the Facts: | Brieah Pigg filed suit on behalf of herself and her two-year old son, Garrett, against Holiday Inn, alleging negligence. The court granted Holiday Inn’s motion for summary judgment. Pigg appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | There is no dispute in this case that the Piggs were business invitees of Holiday Inn, which consequently owed them a duty of reasonable care in keeping their premises in a reasonably safe condition. That duty includes not only the duty to keep its premises in a reasonably safe condition, but the duty to warn of any dangerous conditions not readily apparent which the owner knew, or should have known, in the exercise of reasonable care and the duty to conduct reasonable inspections to discover dangerous conditions existing on the premises. Pigg argues that a loosely-attached mirror in her hotel room constituted a hidden, dangerous condition, and that the Holiday Inn knew, or reasonably should have known, of the danger, but failed to warn of it. She also argues that, by not properly inspecting and repairing the mirror, Holiday Inn failed in its duty to keep its premises in a reasonably safe condition. Pigg claims she met her burden by proffering evidence of loosely-attached mirrors in two adjacent rooms and that the location of the glass on the floor is circumstantial evidence that the mirror did not fall because the door was slammed open or shut by her son. There is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Holiday Inn knew or should have known of the loose mirror, and whether it was negligent in inspecting its premises. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
