Ladner v. Holleman
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-01932-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-19-2012 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Premises liability - Duty of care - Good Samaritan - Section 73-25-37 - Foreseeability of injury - Proximate causation Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Barnes, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Fair, JJ. Dissenting Author : Russell, J. Dissent Joined By : Irving and Griffis, P.JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-22-2010 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: John C. Gargiulo Disposition: PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED IN FAVOR OF APPELLEE Case Number: A2401-08-185 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Rebecca Ladner |
WILLIAM ALEX BRADY II
SHANNON ADELE LADNER |
|
|
| Appellee: | Michael Holleman | EDWARD J. CURRIE JR. JEREMY T. HUTTO TIM C. HOLLEMAN | ||
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 of care - Good Samaritan - Section 73-25-37 - Foreseeability of injury - Proximate causation |
| Summary of the Facts: | Rebecca Ladner filed an action against Michael Holleman, alleging negligence on the part of Holleman for her fall off of a bicycle at his house and for his administration of aid after the fall when Ladner fell again in Holleman’s house. Holleman filed a motion for partial summary judgment. He sought partial summary judgment on Ladner’s claims arising from the fall in his home. The judge granted Holleman’s motion for partial summary judgment based on the lack of evidence of any willful on wanton conduct on the part of Holleman. The trial judge entered an M.R.C.P. 54(b) final judgment dismissing with prejudice all claims arising from the fall in the home. Ladner appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Duty of care Ladner argues the trial court erred by granting partial summary judgment based on premises-liability law. She further argues the Good Samaritan Statute, found in section 73-25-37, applies because Holleman voluntarily rendered aid and, when rendering aid, failed to exercise reasonable care. Ladner asserts the applicable duty of care owed is good faith and reasonable care standard under the Good Samaritan Statute and not the duty of care owed to licensees in premises-liability actions to refrain from willfully or wantonly injuring them. The duty owed to Ladner could have been the applicable standard of care under either theory of liability. Premises-liability law is only applicable when the injury is a result of conditions or activities on the premises, not based on the fact that the injury simply occurred on the premises. It is conceivable that the Good Samaritan Statute would govern in circumstances where a premises owner voluntarily renders aid to another person on his premises. Although uncertainty exists regarding the applicable standard of care owed to Ladner, summary judgment is still appropriate because Ladner failed to establish that Holleman’s negligence was the proximate cause of her injuries under either theory of liability. Issue 2: Foreseeability of injury Under Mississippi law, for a person to be liable for another person's injury, the cause of an injury must be of such a character and done in such a situation that the actor should have reasonably anticipated some injury as a probable result. Thus, some type of injury must be reasonably foreseeable for the negligent party to be held liable. Ladner has failed to provide any evidence that Holleman’s negligence proximately caused her injuries. Because we do not know what negligence, if any, proximately caused her injuries, it is impossible to determine whether some injury was reasonably foreseeable as a result of Holleman’s actions. Issue 3: Proximate causation In order to survive summary judgment, Ladner needed to show some evidence that Holleman’s breach of duty caused her injury. Ladner offered no evidence regarding the cause of her fall in the house. In fact, Lander does not even know how she fell. She also provided no evidence, medical or otherwise, to establish the cause of the fall. Without knowing the reason she fell, it is impossible to determine whether Holleman’s negligence was the proximate cause of her injuries under any theory of liability. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
