338 So.3d 653
Miss. Ct. App.2022Background
- On June 28, 2011, Gary Gillespie (experienced construction worker) was hired to cover and seal a broken skylight on Rose Lamey’s metal storage-roof; Lamey (or her son Ben) provided plywood, sealant, and a ladder.
- Gillespie inspected from a ladder, returned the next day, knelt at the skylight to measure, the metal roof adjacent to the skylight buckled under his knees, and he fell through sustaining serious injuries.
- Gillespie sued Lamey for premises liability, alleging she failed to warn him of a dangerous condition; Lamey moved for summary judgment arguing lack of notice and that the risk was "intimately connected" to the contracted work; she also asserted a release (later held unenforceable by the trial court).
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for Lamey on two alternative grounds: (1) no evidence Lamey had actual or constructive knowledge of the roof defect and thus no duty to warn, and (2) the injury was "intimately connected" to the work Gillespie was hired to perform.
- On appeal Gillespie challenged the failure-to-warn ruling, application of the intimately-connected doctrine (and its control exception), the court’s treatment of whether he knew of a prior fall, reliance on a hospital blood-alcohol record, and denial of reconsideration.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding no material factual dispute that would defeat summary judgment: no owner knowledge of the roof defect and the injury was intimately connected to the contracted work; the control exception did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to warn / notice of defect | Gillespie: Lamey failed to warn of latent defect in metal roof and Walsh’s prior fall | Lamey: No actual or constructive knowledge of roof propensity to buckle; no duty to inspect | Affirmed — no evidence Lamey knew or should have known of roof defect, so no duty to warn |
| Application of "intimately connected" doctrine | Gillespie: Doctrine shouldn't bar recovery because he was not an expert and lacked control | Lamey: Injury arose from the very work he was hired to do (cover/seal skylight) so doctrine bars liability | Affirmed — injury was intimately connected to contracted roofing/skylight work; bars claim |
| Control exception to the doctrine | Gillespie: Lamey retained control (provided materials, observed, told him what to do) | Lamey: Providing materials/observing is not retaining control over the work aspect that caused injury | Affirmed — no evidence Lamey retained control over the work that caused the injury; exception inapplicable |
| Other trial-court findings (Walsh notice, intoxication, reconsideration) | Gillespie: Disputes whether he was told of Walsh’s fall; challenges court’s reference to hospital BAC and denial of 59(e) motion | Lamey: Prior fall and BAC noted; but summary judgment rests on other, dispositive legal grounds | Affirmed — disputed facts were immaterial; BAC discussion non-dispositive; reconsideration raised same issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Stuckey v. The Provident Bank, 912 So. 2d 859 (Miss. 2005) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)
- Simmons v. Thompson Mach. of Miss. Inc., 631 So. 2d 798 (Miss. 1994) (materiality focus in summary judgment)
- Coho Res. Inc. v. McCarthy, 829 So. 2d 1 (Miss. 2002) (landowner’s duty to keep premises reasonably safe)
- Griffin v. Grenada Youth League, 230 So. 3d 1083 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (duty to warn invitees of non-obvious dangers requires owner knowledge)
- Peak v. Cohee, 294 So. 3d 604 (Miss. 2020) (intimately connected doctrine bars recovery when injury arises from contracted work)
- Vu v. Clayton, 765 So. 2d 1253 (Miss. 2000) (fall through ceiling during contracted work was intimately connected to the work)
- Grammar v. Dollar, 911 So. 2d 619 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (intimately connected doctrine applied where danger was inherent to the hired task)
- Magee v. Transcon. Gas Pipe Line Corp., 551 So. 2d 182 (Miss. 1989) (control exception to the intimately connected doctrine requires owner retention of control)