Penny Pinchers v. Outlaw
Docket Number: | 2009-CA-01324-COA | |
Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-26-2011 Opinion Author: Griffis, P.J. Holding: Reversed and rendered. |
|
Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Premises liability - Duty to business invitee - Dangerous condition Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving, P.J., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Procedural History: JNOV Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-14-2009 Appealed from: Clay County Circuit Court Judge: Lee J. Howard Disposition: Verdict Entered in Favor of Lenetra Outlaw for $130,000 Case Number: 2007-0024 |
Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
Appellant: | Penny Pinchers and William B. Johnson d/b/a Penny Pinchers |
B. WAYNE WILLIAMS, PAUL NATHAN JENKINS JR. |
|
|
Appellee: | Lenetra Outlaw | ORLANDO RODRIQUEZ RICHMOND SR., CHYNEE ALLEN BAILEY |
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 business invitee - Dangerous condition |
Summary of the Facts: | Cindy Scott was the manager of Penny Pinchers, a discount grocery store. She was also the owner of a four-month-old daschund puppy named Sophie, which weighed four pounds and one ounce. Scott took Sophie to work with her every day. She set up a piece of peg board to keep Sophie contained in the area behind the checkout counter. Lenetra Outlaw entered Penny Pinchers. She said hello to Scott, who was having a conversation with an employee and a customer. Outlaw testified that she started walking down an aisle when she heard a dog bark. Because she is terrified of dogs, she started running down the aisle toward the back of the store. She said that she could hear the claws of the dog hit the floor as the dog chased her down the aisle. When she turned to see how close the dog was, she ran into a freezer at the back of the store. She then tried to jump on top of the freezer to get away from the dog. Scott’s testimony of the events surrounding Outlaw’s injuries was markedly different. She testified that she unknowingly left the pegboard enclosure open. While she was talking, she heard Sophie bark from the front side of the counter. Scott realized Sophie was out of the enclosure, so Scott stepped in front of the counter and picked up the dog. Scott testified that it only took a moment for her to pick up Sophie after she heard the bark. By then, Scott said that Outlaw was already thirty feet away at the back of the store. When Outlaw returned to the counter with her purchase, she began to sob. Scott testified that she asked Outlaw whether she needed an ambulance. Scott said that she could not understand Outlaw because of the sobbing. Outlaw was transported to the hospital in an ambulance. Outlaw filed suit against Penny Pinchers, William Johnson, and Scott. Scott, in her individual capacity, was dismissed as a defendant prior to trial. At the close of Outlaw’s case-in-chief, Penny Pinchers moved for a directed verdict claiming that Outlaw had presented no evidence of any dangerous condition. Penny Pinchers further asserted that Outlaw had failed to show that Sophie had previously exhibited any dangerous propensities or that Penny Pinchers knew or should have known of such a danger. The motion for a directed verdict was denied. The jury found Penny Pinchers 70% liable and Outlaw 30% liable for Outlaw’s injuries. Outlaw was awarded $130,000. Penny Pinchers appeals. |
Summary of Opinion Analysis: | It was undisputed that, as a customer of Penny Pinchers, Outlaw was classified as a business invitee. A business owner owes a business invitee a duty of ordinary care to keep the business premises in a reasonably safe condition. The owner has a duty to warn invitees of dangerous conditions that are not apparent to the invitee, of which the owner or occupier knows or through the exercise of reasonable care should know. Thus, Penny Pinchers owed Outlaw a duty to keep the store in a reasonably safe condition. Penny Pinchers had a duty to warn Outlaw of any dangerous conditions of which it knew or should have known. However, implicit in that duty is that a dangerous condition must exist. Here, the dispute is whether the presence of the dog in the store created a dangerous condition. Outlaw, who claims that Sophie barked at and chased her, argues that Sophie was a dangerous condition. Penny Pinchers disagrees and says it had no reason to believe that Sophie’s presence in the store created any danger. Because Sophie had never exhibited any dangerous propensities, Penny Pinchers claims that it could not and should not have known of any dangerous condition. To impose liability on a dog owner for personal injuries caused by the dog, there must be some proof that the animal has exhibited some dangerous propensity or disposition prior to the attack complained of, and, moreover, it must be shown that the owner knew or reasonably should have known of this propensity or disposition and reasonably should have foreseen that the animal was likely to attack someone. Considering the specific facts of this case, even in a light most favorable to Outlaw, there is no proof that Sophie created a dangerous condition at Penny Pinchers. There was no proof that Sophie had previously exhibited any of the behaviors that Outlaw alleged. Also, Sophie was a four-pound puppy at the time of the incident. Although it is possible that the presence of a dog inside a grocery store could create a dangerous condition, the facts presented at trial do not prove that a dangerous condition existed here. As such, Outlaw failed to prove that Penny Pinchers had breached its duty to provide her reasonably safe conditions within the store. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court