211 So. 3d 748
Miss. Ct. App.2016Background
- Benson sued Mack Rather d/b/a The Tint Shop and Vicksburg Printing for personal injury after a fall at The Tint Shop on Sept. 26, 2012.
- Benson was in the Tint Shop’s waiting area (invitee) while a technician worked on her car and she tripped in the service-bay area on a concrete lip.
- Rather contends Benson exceeded the invitation by entering the service bay from outside the shop.
- Circuit court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no unreasonably dangerous condition and no breach/notice, and Benson retained invitee status at the time of the injury.
- Mississippi premises-liability law uses a three-step analysis (status, duty, breach); Dickinson holds raised thresholds are generally not unreasonably dangerous.
- Benson appeals the grant of summary judgment, arguing genuine issues of material fact exist.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Premises liabilityOK: was the lip an unreasonably dangerous condition? | Benson argues the lip is unreasonably dangerous | Defendants argue Dickinson governs and thresholds are not unreasonably dangerous | No genuine issue; lip not unreasonably dangerous under Dickinson |
| Status at time of injury | Benson remained an invitee | Benson exceeded invitation by entering service bay | Court upheld invitee status at time of fall |
| Negligence per se under IBC | IB C violation constituting negligence per se; expert even planned | IBC pre-1960 existing structures; IBC not applicable; complaint not alleging per se | I BC does not apply; negligence per se not established; upheld summary judgment on this theory |
| Fact sensitivity: warning barriers affecting duty | Signs/barriers would show duty breached | No barriers; thresholds are common and not inherently dangerous | No breach established; threshold not unreasonably dangerous |
| Implied notice/actual notice of dangerous condition | Defendants had notice of dangerous condition | No notice shown; no evidence of maintenance failure | No material fact showing notice; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Dickinson v. Vanderburg, 141 So. 3d 455 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (three-step premises-liability analysis; raised thresholds not unreasonably dangerous; Dickinson cited for threshold rule)
- McGovern v. Scarborough, 566 So. 2d 1225 (Miss. 1990) (raised thresholds not per se dangerous; pre-Tharp standard context)
- Tharp v. Bunge Corp., 641 So.2d 20 (Miss. 1994) (open-and-obvious danger standard refined; damages consideration)
- Doe v. Jameson Inn Inc., 56 So. 3d 549 (Miss. 2011) (premises-liability invitee/licensee/trespasser classification guidance)
- Double Quick Inc. v. Moore, 73 So. 3d 1162 (Miss. 2011) (premises-liability duty posture for invitees/licensees)
- Knight v. Picayune Tire Servs. Inc., 78 So. 3d 356 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (thresholds/steps not inherently dangerous; common architectural features)
- Rod v. Home Depot USA Inc., 931 So. 2d 692 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (duty analysis in premises-liability)
- Snapp v. Harrison, 699 So. 2d 567 (Miss. 1997) (negligence per se pleadings scope)