Cade v. Beard
130 So. 3d 77
| Miss. | 2014Background
- Zachary Beard (minor) died in an ATV rollover while hunting on Ridges Plantation, a leased property operated by Richard Cade as an informal paid hunting club.
- Kenny Beard (member) paid dues; members could bring minor children without extra charge and store/use their own ATVs; Cade did not provide or control members’ ATVs.
- The Trust (managed by Trustmark Bank) owns the land; Trustmark inspected/monitored the property but did not operate or profit from the hunting club.
- Kenny sued Cade and the Trust for negligence, alleging failure to adopt ATV/supervision policies for unlicensed, unsupervised minors.
- Trial court denied summary judgment for both defendants; appellate court reviews de novo and considers premises-liability status (invitee vs. licensee) and breach of duty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Status of Zachary as to the Trust | Zachary was an invitee because the Trust knew of the hunting camp and the lease required compliance with hunting practices | Trust: it did not promote/operate the club or receive club money; Zachary entered for his own benefit (licensee) | Zachary was a licensee as to the Trust |
| Trust's duty / breach | Trust should have ensured policies/procedures to protect minors | As licensee, Trust owed only duty to avoid willful or wanton injury; no evidence of willful/wanton conduct | Trust did not breach duty; summary judgment for Trust reversed to be entered in Trust’s favor |
| Status of Zachary as to Cade/Ridges Plantation | Zachary was an invitee because he accompanied paying member Kenny (who paid dues for family access) | Cade: parents control minors and members, no custody assumed; member/child ATV use was parental responsibility; alternatively, Zachary was a licensee | Zachary was an invitee as to Cade |
| Cade's duty / breach | Cade failed to implement ATV/supervision rules and warn of dangerous terrain | Cade owed invitee duty to keep premises reasonably safe and warn of hidden dangers; record shows natural terrain, plaintiff’s testimony that Zachary was an experienced rider, and no evidence lack of rules caused death | Cade did not breach duty as a matter of law; summary judgment for Cade should be entered |
Key Cases Cited
- Corley v. Evans, 835 So.2d 30 (Miss. 2003) (distinguishes invitee vs licensee when owner profits or sponsors event)
- Double Quick, Inc. v. Moore, 73 So.3d 1162 (Miss. 2011) (summary-judgment review and invitee duty principles)
- Gulf Refining Co. v. Moody, 160 So. 559 (Miss. 1935) (minor accompanying adult customer is generally an invitee)
- Howze v. Garner, 928 So.2d 900 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (landowner not vicariously liable when not sponsoring or profiting from event)
- Vaughn ex rel. Vaughn v. Estate of Worrell, 828 So.2d 780 (Miss. 2002) (definition of willful and wanton conduct)
- Vu v. Clayton, 765 So.2d 1253 (Miss. 2000) (invitee’s duty to exercise ordinary care for own safety)