Janet Olier v. Donna Bailey, 2015 Miss. LEXIS 164

Plaintiff Janet Olier, a gardening acquaintance of defendant Donna Bailey, visited Bailey’s home to view plants and entered Bailey’s yard where Bailey kept geese; Bailey had a visible warning sign and lined buckets as a porch barrier.
Olier was frightened by squawking/hissing geese, retreated to the porch, and Bailey (who provided a bamboo stick and accompanied Olier) attempted to distract the birds; a young goose nipped Olier, she fled, tripped over a bucket, and broke her arm.
Olier sued Bailey in county court under premises liability and, alternatively, the dangerous-propensity rule seeking the jurisdictional limit; Bailey moved for summary judgment asserting Olier was a licensee and Bailey breached no duty, and that no prior dangerous propensity of the specific goose was shown.
The county court granted summary judgment for Bailey; the circuit court affirmed; the Supreme Court reviewed de novo.
Court held: (1) Olier was a licensee as a matter of law and Bailey did not breach the limited duty owed to a licensee (premises-liability claim fails); (2) however, a factual issue exists under the dangerous-propensity theory regarding whether Bailey knew or should have known her gaggle posed a foreseeable risk, so summary judgment was reversed as to that claim and the case remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Visitor status: invitee vs licensee	Olier: visit was mutually beneficial (shared gardening interest) so she was an invitee entitled to higher duty	Bailey: visit was for Olier's sole benefit; she was a licensee	Court: Olier was a licensee as a matter of law
Duty/breach as landowner	Olier: geese/arrangement created a hidden trap and Bailey’s conduct was willful/wanton	Bailey: geese and buckets were open/obvious; she warned, accompanied, and offered a stick—no willful/wanton conduct	Court: No breach of duty to licensee; summary judgment proper on premises-liability claim
Applicability/extension of Hoffman affirmative-negligence doctrine	Olier: (alternatively) Hoffman should be extended to domiciles to impose ordinary care	Bailey: Hoffman applies to business premises only and is inapplicable	Court: Declined to extend Hoffman here because animal-owner duty is analyzed separately from premises liability
Dangerous-propensity rule (animal-owner liability)	Olier: owner knew gaggle was aggressive (gave stick, instructed, acted as decoy); foreseeability exists for the group, not just one bird	Bailey: No evidence the particular goose had prior dangerous acts; only an older goose had chased someone previously and was secured	Court: A genuine fact issue exists whether Bailey had notice/should have foreseen danger from the gaggle; reversed as to this claim and remanded

Hoffman v. Planters Gin Co., 358 So.2d 1008 (Miss. 1978) (licensee may trigger ordinary-care standard for landowner’s affirmative/active negligence)
Poy v. Grayson, 273 So.2d 491 (Miss. 1973) (animal-owner liability requires proof animal showed dangerous propensity before attack and owner knew or reasonably should have known)
Mongeon v. A & V Enter., Inc., 733 So.2d 170 (Miss. 1997) (barking/growling/chasing can suffice to show dangerous propensity for jury)
Massey v. Tingle, 867 So.2d 235 (Miss. 2004) (definition of licensee)
Little by Little v. Bell, 719 So.2d 757 (Miss. 1998) (landowner duties to invitee vs licensee summarized)
Double Quick, Inc. v. Moore, 73 So.3d 1162 (Miss. 2011) (standard of review for summary judgment; premises-liability framing)
Raney v. Jennings, 158 So.2d 715 (Miss. 1963) (definition of willful/wanton conduct and licensee risks)
Cade v. Beard, 130 So.3d 77 (Miss. 2014) (premises-liability analysis applied to non-stationary hazards like ATV accident)