Kenyatta Donta Cheeks v. AutoZone, Inc.
2014 Miss. LEXIS 479
| Miss. | 2014Background
- Cheeks injured when Johnson struck him at AutoZone; jury apportioned 55% to Johnson and 45% to AutoZone, awarding $2.58M; judgment against AutoZone was $1.161M plus 5% interest, later vacated by JNOV which Cheeks appeals.
- Cheeks parked on the north side of the store, facing a solid wall with no bollards, and was struck near the northeast entrance where there was no bollard protection.
- AutoZone admitted bollards were posted as a safety measure in response to discovery, but trial testimony described bollards as protecting storefront and merchandise rather than pedestrians.
- AutoZone employees testified customers occasionally drove onto the handicap ramp under the canopy during inclement weather; management had not uniformly authorized this practice.
- Expert evidence included Daubert’s opinion that the entrance design breached pedestrian safety principles and that bollards should have protected the entire entrance; architect Callow testified bollards were not pedestrian-proof; trial court denied directed verdict, then granted JNOV for AutoZone.
- The appellate court reversed the JNOV, holding that there was sufficient evidence of foreseeability and duty to create a jury question, and remanded for judgment consistent with the opinion and prior judgment.
- Dissenting opinion argues no duty to erect impregnable barriers and that Cheeks’s injury was unforeseeable as a matter of law, agreeing with Carpenter v. Stop-N-Go and emphasizing Johnson’s uncontested seizure/accident as the cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in granting JNOV against Cheeks. | Cheeks argues foreseeability and duty support liability. | AutoZone contends no duty to install impregnable barriers; evidence shows unforeseeable injury. | Yes; JNOV reversed; issues of foreseeability and duty for the jury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. Stop-N-Go Markets of Georgia, Inc., 512 So.2d 708 (Miss. 1987) (no duty to erect impregnable barriers; premises owner not insurer of safety inside store)
- Crain v. Cleveland Lodge 1532, Order of Moose, Inc., 641 So.2d 1186 (Miss. 1994) (foreseeability as touchstone for landowner duty; factors include premises condition and prior experience)
- Massey v. Tingle, 867 So.2d 235 (Miss. 2004) (premises liability framework: invitee status, duty, breach)
- Thomas v. Columbia Group, LLC, 969 So.2d 849 (Miss. 2007) (foreseeability of injury to determine liability for invitees)
- Rein v. Benchmark Constr. Co., 865 So.2d 1134 (Miss. 2004) (voluntary undertakings/duties limited to scope of undertaking)
- Mauney v. Gulf Ref. Co., 9 So.2d 780 (Miss. 1942) (general foreseeability standard for liability)