Buffalo Services, Inc. v. Smith, 227 So. 3d 1096

Branden Smith sued Buffalo Services (owner of two adjacent buildings) after a vehicle driven by Donald Galmon crashed into a clothing store (Daisy’s) leased by a third party on April 30, 2015, injuring Smith.
Buffalo Services operates a convenience store/gas station in one building and leased the adjacent building to the clothing store owner.
Smith alleged Buffalo Services negligently failed to install vertical bollards, parking stops, or other barriers to prevent vehicles from entering the store.
The Wilkinson County Chancery Court denied Buffalo Services’ motion for summary judgment; Buffalo Services petitioned for interlocutory appeal.
The Mississippi Supreme Court (en banc) granted interlocutory review and reversed, holding as a matter of law that Buffalo Services owed no duty to protect patrons inside the leased store from third-party vehicles under the general rule from prior Mississippi precedent.
Justice King (joined by others) filed a separate statement arguing genuine issues of material fact (prior similar incidents, shared parking lot, slope, absence of stops, partial bollards) precluded summary judgment and that the case should go to a jury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Buffalo Services owed a duty to patrons inside the leased clothing store to erect barriers to prevent third-party vehicles from entering the store	Smith: prior similar incidents and property conditions made vehicle intrusion foreseeable; owner had duty to keep premises reasonably safe or warn invitees	Buffalo Services: as a matter of Mississippi law, store owners do not owe a duty to erect barriers to protect patrons inside a leased store from runaway vehicles	Held: Generally no duty; summary judgment for Buffalo Services because plaintiff did not show the limited exceptions that create a duty
Whether prior knowledge/assumption of protection created a jury question	Smith: testimony of prior vehicle hitting the building and other facts create material factual disputes	Buffalo Services: no evidence it assumed protective duty or created foreseeability comparable to Cheeks	Held: Court found no evidence Buffalo Services assumed the protective duty or created foreseeability required to overcome the general rule

Cheeks v. Auto-Zone, Inc., 154 So.3d 817 (Miss. 2014) (stores generally owe no duty to erect barriers to prevent vehicles from entering through storefronts; limited exceptions where defendant created foreseeability or assumed protective measures)
Carpenter v. Stop-N-Go Markets of Georgia, Inc., 512 So.2d 708 (Miss. 1987) (recognizing no general duty to erect barriers to prevent vehicles from crashing through plate glass)
Stanley v. Scott Petroleum Corp., 184 So.3d 940 (Miss. 2016) (foreseeability and factual circumstances determine whether duty to erect barriers can arise)
Drennan v. Kroger Co., 672 So.2d 1168 (Miss. 1996) (landowner duty to keep premises reasonably safe and to warn of hidden dangers)
Double Quick, Inc. v. Moore, 73 So.3d 1162 (Miss. 2011) (premises-liability framework defining duty owed by landowners)
Donald v. Amoco Prod. Co., 735 So.2d 161 (Miss. 1999) (negligence judged by whether conduct was reasonable under foreseeable risks)