Buck v. Camp Wilkes, Inc., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-01829-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-14-2004 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Summary judgment - Standard of review - Breach of duty - Dangerous instrumentality Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Myers, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-30-2003 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Jerry O. Terry, Sr. Disposition: TRIAL JUDGE GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS DEBORAH BOOZER AND GIRL SCOUTS OF GULF PINES COUNCIL, INC. AND DISMISSED APPELLANTS' CLAIM WITH PREJUDICE. Case Number: A-2402-2001-86 |
|
| Consolidated: 2003-CA-01065-COA Debbie Buck, as Mother and Natural Guardian of Jamie Buck v. Camp Wilkes, Inc.; Girl Scouts of Gulf Pines Council, Inc.; and Deborah Boozer; Harrison Circuit Court 2nd District; LC Case #: A-2402-2001-86; Ruling Date: 04/17/2003; Ruling Judge: Jerry O. Terry, Sr. | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Debbie Buck, as Mother and Natural Guardian of Jamie Buck |
JAMES CLAYTON GARDNER
DAVID C. FRAZIER
WILLIAM L. DENTON |
||
| Appellee: | Camp Wilkes, Inc.; Girl Scouts of Gulf Pines Council, Inc.; and Deborah Boozer | DORRANCE DEE AULTMAN ROGER T. CLARK PATRICK R. BUCHANAN KIMBERLY DAWN SAUCIER ROSETTI SAMUEL TRENT FAVRE |
|
|
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 - Summary judgment - Standard of review - Breach of duty - Dangerous instrumentality |
| Summary of the Facts: | Debbie Buck filed a personal injury action on behalf of her minor daughter, Jamie, against Camp Wilkes, Girl Scouts of Gulf Pine Council, Inc., and troop leader Deborah Boozer, for injuries sustained when the child fell out of a bunk bed at camp. Boozer filed a motion for summary judgment, and Girl Scouts filed a joinder, adopting Boozer’s motion. The court granted Boozer and Girl Scouts’s motion, and Buck filed a notice of appeal. Thereafter, Camp Wilkes filed a motion for summary judgment. The court entered a final judgment of dismissal, granting Camp Wilkes’s motion, and Buck again filed a notice of appeal. Buck’s appeals were consolidated. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Standard of review Buck argues that by granting the defendants’ summary judgment motions, the judge failed to view the facts and issues in the light most favorable to her. The record shows that Buck failed to meet her burden of producing significant evidence to rebut the defendants’ showing that no genuine issue of material fact existed. Buck also produced no evidence to show that the defendants’ breached the established standard of care and that such breach was the cause of her daughter’s injuries. Therefore, the judge appropriately granted the defendants’ summary judgment motions. Issue 2: Breach of duty Buck argues that Boozer and Girl Scouts failed to properly supervise the minor children by not requiring the children to sleep on the bottom bunks, or at least, on bunk beds with side rail protectors. Buck bears the burden of producing evidence sufficient to establish the existence of a duty, breach, proximate causation, and damages. Buck has presented no authority that would substantiate her claim. Issue 3: Dangerous instrumentality Buck argues that the judge failed to find that a bunk bed constituted a dangerous instrumentality. The Court is not prepared to say that a bunk bed being used by a thirteen-year old without guard rails is a dangerous instrumentality. Buck has failed to show any defect in the design of the bed or offer any evidence that the bed failed to comply with applicable standards, regulations, or guidelines. Buck also argues that Camp Wilkes failed to warn her daughter of a dangerous condition which the camp knew, or should have known, existed on their premises. Because Buck has failed to demonstrate or show that the bunk bed in question was in any way defective, there is no merit in her argument. Buck also argues that the defendants’ actions constituted negligence per se because her daughter was less than fourteen years old at the time of the accident. Because Buck failed to cite any case law in support of this proposition, the issue will not be considered. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
