249 So. 3d 400
Miss.2018Background
- On June 19, 2013, George "Leith" Hawkins suffered a stroke (or heat-related collapse) while working at Heck Yea Quarter Horses; he died on June 28, 2013.
- Manager Bruce Horn testified he transported Hawkins to a barn, gave him shade and water, offered an ambulance twice (which Hawkins refused), and Hawkins then left the farm and later became incapacitated at home.
- Plaintiff Connie Hawkins alleged Heck Yea employees hosed Hawkins, left him incoherent, told him to drive home, and failed to obtain medical aid; she sued for wrongful death.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing plaintiff relied on inadmissible hearsay and Horn’s deposition showed no negligence; plaintiff submitted affidavits from Brad Goodman (relaying statements Horn allegedly made after the incident), Dr. Tiffany Scarff (opining earlier care would likely have improved survival), and William Thompson (observed Hawkins driving slowly and erratically).
- The circuit court granted summary judgment based on the good‑samaritan statute and the view that Hawkins coherently refused aid; the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no breach of duty or proximate cause.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the lower courts: it held the record, viewed most favorably to plaintiff, did not create a genuine fact issue of unreasonable care or proximate causation warranting trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether affidavits (Goodman, Scarff, Thompson) create a genuine factual dispute that Heck Yea breached its duty in rendering aid | Goodman’s affidavit relays Horn’s statements indicating Hawkins was in a serious state and may have been incapable of refusing aid; Dr. Scarff opines earlier medical care likely would have improved survival; Thompson’s affidavit undermines Horn’s timeline and Hawkins’ coherence | Horn’s deposition shows offers of aid and Hawkins’ coherent refusal; affidavits are insufficient to show breach or to overcome statutory protection | Court held affidavits did not create a genuine issue of material fact of unreasonable care; summary judgment proper |
| Whether the defendants’ actions were protected by/consistent with Mississippi’s good‑samaritan principles and related negligence law | Plaintiff contends Horn’s alleged later statements and expert opinion show the aid was inadequate and that Hawkins may have lacked capacity to refuse aid, so statutory protection should not bar liability | Defendants assert they acted in good faith and with reasonable care (shade, water, offers of ambulance); duty ended when a competent person refused aid | Court applied the statute and general negligence principles, concluding defendants acted reasonably and duty abated when Hawkins refused aid |
| Whether plaintiff established proximate cause linking defendants’ conduct to Hawkins’s death | Plaintiff argues Dr. Scarff’s affidavit ties delayed care to worse outcome, creating a causation issue for jury | Defendants argue plaintiff failed to prove breach, so proximate cause need not be reached; even if breach alleged, causation is not established | Court found plaintiff failed to show a breach of duty, so causation was not met and need not be addressed |
| Admissibility and effect of Goodman’s statements (admissions against party) | Plaintiff argues Horn’s statements to Goodman are party admissions under Rule 801(d)(2) and create credibility/conflict with Horn’s deposition | Defendants disputed Goodman’s account and Horn denied knowing Goodman; even if admitted, the statements do not create a fact issue on breach/capacity | Court concluded the affidavit did not create sufficient admissible evidence to show a breach or incapacity that would defeat summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitaker v. Limeco Corp., 32 So.3d 429 (Miss. 2010) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Leslie v. City of Biloxi, 758 So.2d 430 (Miss. 2000) (view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Ladner v. Holleman, 90 So.3d 655 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (duty of lay rescuer to use reasonable care)
- Estate of White ex rel. White v. Rainbow Casino‑Vicksburg P’ship, 910 So.2d 713 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (duty abates when competent patron refuses medical aid)
- Grisham v. John Q. Long V.F.W. Post No. 4057, Inc., 519 So.2d 413 (Miss. 1988) (affirmative duty to aid injured patron once injury is known)