Smith v. Harrison County
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-00945-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-21-2011 Opinion Author: Carlton, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Tort Claims Act - Bystander recovery - Absence of relationship - Negligence - Breach of duty Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Russell, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-23-2010 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Roger T. Clark Disposition: GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF HARRISON COUNTY Case Number: A2401-2007-137 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Bonnie Smith |
TAMEKIA ROCHELLE GOLIDAY |
|
|
| Appellee: | Harrison County, Mississippi | JOSEPH R. MEADOWS KAREN J. YOUNG | ||
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 - Tort Claims Act - Bystander recovery - Absence of relationship - Negligence - Breach of duty |
| Summary of the Facts: | Bonnie Smith filed an action against Harrison County, alleging that she sustained emotional injuries while working as a nurse for a private contractor at the Harrison County Adult Detention Center as a direct and proximate result of the actions of the agents and employees of Harrison County. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Harrison County. Smith appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Smith argues that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether she presented a viable claim of negligence against Harrison County since the injuries suffered by her were not intimately connected with the work she was contracted to perform, and she lacked knowledge of the subject dangers. Smith claims that Harrison County owed a duty to her, as an independent contractor, to provide her with a reasonably safe work environment, and it breached this duty by beating an inmate in her presence, causing her psychological and emotional injuries for which she sought medical treatment and incurred medical bills and loss wages. Smith further contends that the Harrison County Sheriff was aware of the history of violence at HCADC and failed to develop and implement policies and procedures to eliminate the use of excessive force by its agents and employees. The trial court determined that Smith was not entitled to recover under the prevailing standard of liability for bystander recovery. In determining whether the defendant should reasonably foresee the injury to the plaintiff, or, whether the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care, the courts will take into account such factors as the following: whether the plaintiff was located near the scene of the accident as contrasted with one who was a distance away from it; whether the shock resulted from a direct emotional impact upon the plaintiff from the sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident, as contrasted with learning of the accident from others after its occurrence; whether the plaintiff and the victim were closely related, as contrasted with an absence of any relationship or the presence of only a distance relationship. The record shows that Smith had no relationship whatsoever with the inmate prior to her witnessing the assault. Thus, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Harrison County. With regard to Smith’s claim of negligence, no evidence exists in the record showing that the Harrison County Board of Supervisors failed to provide Smith with a safe work environment or was aware of any potential unsafe conditions, or that the sheriff was aware of HCADC’s alleged history of violence as asserted by Smith. Additionally, the record lacks evidence showing the sheriff failed to implement policies to eliminate any use of excessive force by agents and employees under his supervision. Therefore, Smith failed to set forth facts showing that Harrison County owed her a duty and to show that Harrison County breached a duty owed to her with respect to her workplace. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
