Maddox v. Townsend and Sons, Inc., 639 F.3d 214

Maddox delivered to Townsend & Sons' Sunflower Store in Columbus, MS; deliveries occurred twice weekly for eight months.
On Sept. 26, 2005, Maddox stood on a loading dock about five feet above ground and interacted with a chain barrier.
The S-hook connecting the chain to the post straightened when Maddox placed weight on it, causing him to fall.
Maddox sued Townsend & Sons for premises liability and failure to warn; his wife asserted loss of consortium.
The district court granted Townsend summary judgment on all claims; Maddox appealed.
The Fifth Circuit reverses and remands, finding disputed material facts on reasonable safety and warning duties under Mississippi law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Duty to keep premises reasonably safe	Maddox argues chain/inspections breached duty	Townsend contends only five-foot drop mattered	Question for jury; summary judgment improper and remanded
Duty to warn of hidden dangers	Maddox contends danger not readily apparent; warning needed	Townsend says danger obvious; no warning required	Question for jury; summary judgment improper and remanded

Pigg v. Express Hotel Partners, LLC, 991 So.2d 1197 (Miss. 2008) (two-part premises liability test; separate duties to keep safe and warn of hidden dangers)
Wood v. RIH Acquisitions MS II, LLC, 556 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 2009) (safety devices may create jury questions on reasonable safety)
Mayfield v. The Hairbender, 903 So.2d 733 (Miss. 2005) (separate duties; warning not required for readily apparent dangers)
Fulton v. Robinson Indus., Inc., 664 So.2d 170 (Miss. 1995) (owner not required to foresee unusual results; reasonableness standard)
Alexander v. Jackson Cnty. Hist. Soc'y, Inc., 227 So.2d 291 (Miss. 1969) (Restatement-based duty: discover, warn or repair for unreasonable risk)