Mario Holland v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Aden, LLC d/b/a Black's Food Market, Raman Aman, LLC, Miss U Holdings, John Lee, Lee Johnson and Edward West d/b/a West Restaurant and Lounge, 290 So.3d 1253

Mario Holland was shot and robbed in the parking lot of Black’s Food Market after returning from West Lounge; he alleges the assailant came from a vacant lot across the street.
Murphy Oil owned the vacant lot; Holland sued Murphy Oil (among others) for negligence based on the assailant allegedly originating from Murphy’s property.
Murphy Oil moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no legal duty to Holland for the third-party assault.
Holland relied on Restatement (Third) of Torts § 54 (landowner duties to persons off the land) and requested additional discovery under Rule 56(f).
The trial court granted Murphy Oil’s motion, finding no duty owed, concluding Section 54 did not apply and denying the discovery request; Holland appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a landowner owes a duty to protect persons off its land from third-party criminal acts (adoption/application of Restatement (Third) § 54)	Holland: Mississippi should adopt § 54 to impose a reasonable-care duty for land conditions or conduct that risk harm off the land	Murphy Oil: No duty exists to control independent third parties; § 54 is inapplicable to a third-party assault from off the property	Court: § 54 is inapplicable here; under Mississippi law no duty existed—no control relationship or special relationship creating a right to protection; summary judgment affirmed
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Holland’s request for additional discovery under Rule 56(f)	Holland: Discovery could reveal facts supporting a duty or application of § 54	Murphy Oil: Discovery would not change lack of any legal duty	Court: Denial was not error because additional discovery would not alter the absence of a legal duty

Crosthwait v. Southern Health Corp. of Houston, Inc., 94 So. 3d 1070 (Miss. 2012) (summary-judgment standard and de novo appellate review)
Duckworth v. Warren, 10 So. 3d 433 (Miss. 2009) (evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party)
Doe v. Hunter Oaks Apartments, L.P., 105 So. 3d 422 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (duty to control third parties is narrow and depends on special relationships or that one has taken charge)
Strantz v. Pinion, 652 So. 2d 738 (Miss. 1995) (existence of duty is an essential element of a negligence claim)