146 So. 3d 388
Miss. Ct. App.2014Background
- Banks sued Brinker Mississippi Inc. for premises liability after injuring in a hole in Chili’s parking lot in Southaven, MS.
- Bank’s injury occurred on February 20, 2009; she parked in Chili’s lot believing she might be in IHOP’s lot and not intending to patronize Chili’s.
- Brinker moved for summary judgment arguing Banks was at most a licensee because she did not intend to patronize Chili’s.
- Trial court granted Brinker’s summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact and Banks was not an invitee.
- Appeal proceeded under de novo review; court affirmed the summary judgment.
- Court held Banks was, at best, a licensee and Brinker owed no more than the duty not to willfully or wantonly injure her.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Banks an invitee or a licensee?“, | Banks was economically benefited by Brinker’s location and intended to patronize Chili’s. | Banks did not intend to patronize Chili’s and thus was a licensee; Chili’s did not receive an economic advantage from her parking. | Banks was at best a licensee; no genuine issue on invitee status. |
| Did the record show a breach of duty or willful/wanton conduct by Brinker? | Evidence suggested potential negligence or willful disregard by Brinker. | No evidence of willful/wanton conduct; no duty breached beyond licensee standard. | No genuine issue of material fact; no breach under licensee duty; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daulton v. Miller, 815 So.2d 1237 (Miss.Ct.App.2001) (defines invitee vs. licensee status and duties)
- Little ex rel. Little v. Bell, 719 So.2d 757 (Miss.1998) (identifies statuses of invitee, licensee, trespasser)
- Marlon Investment Co. v. Conner, 149 So.2d 312 (Miss.1963) (premises liability status framework)
- Holmes v. Campbell Properties, Inc., 47 So.3d 721 (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (premises liability duties to licensees)
- Hoffman v. Planters Gin Co. Inc., 358 So.2d 1008 (Miss.1978) (exceptional negligence standards for premises)
- Clark v. Moore Mem’l United Methodist Church, 538 So.2d 760 (Miss.1989) (public vs. business invitee distinctions)