Delois King v. Willie B. King
229 So. 3d 197
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In November 2009, Delois King was injured when a tractor she was operating overturned on property owned by her mother, Willie King. Delois alleged Willie directed her to use the tractor to remove junk cars.
- Two eyewitnesses (Fox and Adams) submitted affidavits saying Delois insisted on using the tractor, that Willie was not present or instructing, and that others warned Delois it was dangerous.
- Delois sued Willie for premises liability, alleging Willie provided an unsafe tractor and failed to warn of dangerous conditions.
- Willie moved for summary judgment; the circuit court granted it, finding no evidence the tractor or premises were unsafe, no hidden dangers, and that proximate cause was Delois’s decision to use the tractor.
- On appeal, the court assumed for summary-judgment purposes Delois was an invitee but held that even under that status the record lacked evidence of duty breach, defect, or hidden danger attributable to Willie.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment | Delois: conflicting affidavits create factual disputes about Willie’s instructions and control | Willie: record lacks evidence of unsafe condition or breach; eyewitness affidavits contradict Delois | No — disputed facts were immaterial; summary judgment proper |
| Duty owed and breach (premises liability) | Delois: as an invitee, Willie had duty to keep premises/tractor safe and warn of dangers | Willie: no evidence tractor or land was dangerous or had hidden defects known to her | No breach shown; no duty violation established |
| Causation — proximate cause of injury | Delois: Willie’s failure to warn and provision of tractor caused injury | Willie: proximate cause was Delois’s voluntary decision to use tractor improperly | Court held Delois’s conduct was proximate cause; no evidence implicating Willie |
| Sufficiency of plaintiff’s evidence to survive summary judgment | Delois: her affidavit and status as invitee suffice to raise triable issues | Willie: nonmoving party must produce significant probative evidence, not conclusory allegations | Delois’s conclusory assertions insufficient; only her affidavit submitted — summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pigg v. Express Hotel Partners LLC, 991 So. 2d 1197 (Miss. 2008) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Glover ex rel. Glover v. Jackson State Univ., 968 So. 2d 1267 (Miss. 2007) (summary judgment entitlement where no genuine issue of material fact)
- McMichael v. Nu-Way Steel & Supply Inc., 563 So. 2d 1371 (Miss. 1990) (non-movant must produce significant probative evidence to avoid summary judgment)
- Caruso v. Picayune Pizza Hut Inc., 598 So. 2d 770 (Miss. 1992) (landowner not insurer; duty is to keep premises reasonably safe and warn of hidden dangers)
- Double Quick Inc. v. Moore, 73 So. 3d 1162 (Miss. 2011) (landowner must warn invitees only of hidden dangers not in plain view)
- Simmons v. Thompson Mach. of Miss. Inc., 631 So. 2d 798 (Miss. 1994) (materiality of facts controls whether disputes preclude summary judgment)
- Summers ex rel. Dawson v. St. Andrew’s Episcopal Sch. Inc., 759 So. 2d 1203 (Miss. 2000) (only facts affecting outcome under governing law will preclude summary judgment)