376 So.3d 385
Miss. Ct. App.2023Background
- RL Stratton hired David Rhodes, an experienced, licensed roofer, to locate and repair recurring water leaks in a commercial building’s roof and attic.
- Owner Lee Stratton inspected the building from inside and on the roof a few times but never entered the attic; a dropped ceiling and a dormer concealed a framed opening in the attic floor.
- On his third visit searching for the leak, Rhodes entered the attic/dormer and fell through a hidden framed opening, sustaining serious injuries.
- Rhodes and his wife sued RL Stratton for failure to warn; RL Stratton moved for summary judgment arguing no actual or constructive notice and that the injury was "intimately connected" to the work Rhodes was hired to do.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for RL Stratton; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) no constructive knowledge as a matter of law and (2) the intimately connected doctrine barred recovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RL Stratton had actual or constructive knowledge of the hidden framed opening and thus a duty to warn | Rhodes: Owner had the building ~1.5 years, visited multiple times, failed to inspect; constructive notice could be inferred (expert cited IPMC violations) | RL Stratton: Attic was inaccessible/hidden; no evidence owner knew or should have discovered the opening; Rhodes (contractor) was in better position to find the hazard | Court: No constructive knowledge as a matter of law (attic highly inaccessible; owner had no reason/duty to inspect); summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether the "intimately connected" doctrine bars Rhodes’s failure-to-warn claim | Rhodes: The missing joists/structural defect were unrelated to his task (repairing leaks); expert said work was not "intimately involved" | RL Stratton: Rhodes fell while searching for the leak he was hired to locate; the risk of falling was inherent to that work, so doctrine applies | Court: Doctrine applies—injury arose from or was intimately connected to the contracted roofing/leak-search work; no owner control exception; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Vu v. Clayton, 765 So. 2d 1253 (Miss. 2000) (attic danger concealed and contractor in better position; risk "intimately connected" to contracted attic work)
- Peak v. Cohee, 294 So. 3d 604 (Miss. 2020) (applies intimately connected doctrine to bar contractor claims where injury arises from the contracted task)
- Wilbanks v. Hickman, 198 So. 3d 393 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (no duty to inspect inaccessible space before hiring contractor; relies on Vu)
- Gillespie v. Lamey, 338 So. 3d 653 (Miss. Ct. App. 2022) (property owner not liable where no actual/constructive notice and risk tied to contractor’s work)
- White v. Targa Downstream LLC, 358 So. 3d 627 (Miss. 2023) (explains policy that burden falls on party best positioned to eliminate the danger)
- Grammar v. Dollar, 911 So. 2d 619 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (states principle that owners aren’t liable for risks inherent or intimately connected to the contractor’s work)