170 So. 3d 522
Miss. Ct. App.2014Background
- Bennett and her minor children were tenants at Highland Park Apartments.
- On Feb. 5, 2010, three intruders forcibly entered Bennett’s apartment seeking Bennett’s drugs and money, injuring Bennett, her children, and a guest.
- Bennett filed suit on Feb. 18, 2010 alleging the landlords failed to protect invitees by maintaining gates, lighting, cameras, and security.
- Highland Park and Sampson moved to strike certain expert testimony and moved for summary judgment on Jan. 10, 2012; Bennett responded.
- Bennett moved to recuse the trial judge; the motion was denied March 22, 2012, with a subsequent stay, then lifted; the court granted summary judgment on Sept. 19, 2012 and Bennett appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty and breach on premises liability | Bennett asserts Highland Park owed a duty to keep premises reasonably safe and breach shown by broken gate/lighting. | Highland Park contends no breach established and no duty breached given circumstances. | Issues of duty/breach factual; summary judgment improper on these facts. |
| Proximate cause and atmosphere of violence | Bennett argues atmosphere of violence and lack of security established proximate cause. | Highland Park contends no proximate-cause evidence to support liability. | Genuine issues of material fact exist on proximate cause. |
| Admissibility of expert testimony under Daubert/Kumho | Tisdale’s crime-security analysis is relevant and reliable. | Expert testimony not adequately grounded. | Tisdale’s testimony satisfies Daubert standard; admissible evidence supports claims. |
| Recusal motion timeliness | Motions to recuse timely and justified by impartiality concerns. | Motion untimely under URCCC 1.15 and grounds appeared earlier. | Motion to recuse untimely; no manifest error in denial. |
| Overall judgment posture | Summary judgment should be reversed for issues of fact. | Summary judgment appropriate where no material facts in dispute. | Affirmed in part on recusal issue; reversed and remanded on merits for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holmes v. Campbell Props., Inc., 47 So.3d 721 (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (elements of premises-liability; duty, breach, proximate cause, damages)
- Davis v. Christian Bhd. Homes of Jackson, Miss., Inc., 957 So.2d 390 (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (applies Daubert standard to expert testimony)
- Double Quick Inc. v. Lymas, 50 So.3d 292 (Miss.2010) (distinguishes this case on proximate-cause analysis)
- Hathcock v. S. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 912 So.2d 844 (Miss.2005) (recusal standard—reasonable doubt about impartiality)
- Washington Mut. Fin. Grp., LLC v. Blackmon, 925 So.2d 780 (Miss.2004) (impartiality presumption; recusal analysis)
- Moss Point Sch. Dist. v. Stennis, 132 So.3d 1047 (Miss.2014) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert framework applied to non-scientific expert testimony)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (test for reliability of expert testimony)