Mayfield v. The Hairbender
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-00471-SCT Linked Case(s): 2004-CA-00471-SCT ; 2004-CA-00471-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-02-2005 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: Affirmed in Part; Reversed and Remanded in Part |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Failure to warn - Open and obvious condition - Failure to maintain premises Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson, Graves and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-06-2004 Appealed from: Calhoun County Circuit Court Judge: Andrew K. Howorth Disposition: Granted Appellee's motion for summary judgment. Case Number: C2002-087 |
|
| Note: | The motion for rehearing filed by appellee is denied. Mississippi Defense Lawyers Association's Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's prior order, which denied a motion for additional time in which to submit a brief of amicus curiae, is denied. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Anita Mayfield |
GREGORY W. HARBISON |
||
| Appellee: | The Hairbender | GOODLOE TANKERSLEY LEWIS |
|
|
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 - Failure to warn - Open and obvious condition - Failure to maintain premises |
| Summary of the Facts: | The motion for rehearing is denied, and this opinion is substituted for the original opinion. While descending the stairs from The Hairbender salon after making a delivery, Anita Mayfield tripped on uneven pavement. She filed suit claiming that The Hairbender was negligent both by failing to repair the pavement where she tripped and in failing to adequately warn her of the broken, raised pavement. The Hairbender filed a motion for summary judgment which the court granted. Mayfield appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Mayfield argues that The Hairbender was negligent in failing to properly maintain and repair the pavement and in failing to warn her of the danger. The Hairbender argues that the Court’s recognition of two separate causes of action, one for negligence and the other for failure to warn, would be a significant change in Mississippi law as to the duties and obligations of landowners. However, The Hairbender mistakenly concludes that Mayfield’s two theories of negligence are considered two separate causes of action. The owner, occupant or person in charge of property is not an insurer of the safety of an invitee. Where the invitee knows or should know of an apparent danger, no warning is required. The uneven pavement outside of The Hairbender was an open and obvious danger. Mayfield admitted as much in her deposition. Therefore, warning Mayfield of the uneven pavement would have served no purpose because she already knew about it. Mayfield also argues The Hairbender was negligent in failing to repair the broken, uneven, raised pavement. In cases in which the plaintiff alleges the defendant was negligent in creating or failing to repair a dangerous condition, and the defendant alleges the dangerous condition was open and obvious, the jury must consider the alleged negligence of both and apply the comparative negligence standard. As a matter of law, The Hairbender’s failure to warn of open and obvious dangers was not negligent. The Hairbender had no duty to warn of open and obvious dangers. This leaves only the question of whether The Hairbender fulfilled its duty to keep its premises in a reasonably safe condition. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
