Patterson v. T. L. Wallace Construction, Inc.
2013 Miss. LEXIS 189
| Miss. | 2013Background
- Patterson was seriously injured in a single-vehicle motorcycle crash on Cross Creek Parkway in Hattiesburg, allegedly due to debris on the road.
- Patterson sued Turtle Creek Development, Inc. and T. L. Wallace Construction, Inc., alleging negligence by both defendants.
- Both defendants moved for summary judgment; the circuit court granted summary judgment to each defendant.
- Turtle Creek owned adjacent property and retained T. L. Wallace to perform work; debris allegedly resulted from that or nearby activity.
- The record showed conflicting or sparse evidence about who placed the debris, how long it had been there, and whether Turtle Creek or T. L. Wallace created or controlled the hazard.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, and this Court granted certiorari to review the summary-judgment rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Turtle Creek is vicariously liable for T. L. Wallace | Patterson asserts agency/employee relationship due to Turtle Creek's control and payment by the hour. | Turtle Creek contends T. L. Wallace was an independent contractor and not Turtle Creek’s employee. | Turtle Creek entitled to summary judgment; no agency or vicarious liability. |
| Whether Turtle Creek owed a duty to maintain or warn about debris on a public road | As owner adjacent to the Parkway, Turtle Creek owed a duty to maintain or warn about hazards. | Public road maintenance duty lies with the City; Turtle Creek cannot be liable for debris on a public road. | No duty. Turtle Creek not liable for debris on the public road. |
| Whether T. L. Wallace created or failed to warn about the hazardous condition | Circumstantial evidence shows T. L. Wallace created or failed to mitigate the debris hazard. | Patterson cannot prove creation or maintenance of the hazard; no genuine issue of material fact. | No genuine issue; Patterson failed to show T. L. Wallace created the hazard; summary judgment proper against Wallace. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chisolm v. Miss. Dep’t of Transp., 942 So.2d 136 (Miss. 2006) (defines independent contractor standard)
- Martin v. Flanagan, 818 So.2d 1124 (Miss. 2002) (landowner not liable for maintenance of public road)
- Spann v. Shuqualak Lumber Co., 990 So.2d 186 (Miss. 2008) (duty to refrain from creating dangerous condition)
- Huynh v. Phillips, 95 So.3d 1259 (Miss. 2012) (elements of negligence; duty and breach required first)
- Davis v. Flippen, 260 So.2d 847 (Miss. 1972) (circumstantial evidence can prove negligence)
- Kurn v. Fondren, 198 So. 727 (Miss. 1940) (circumstantial evidence and origin of hazard for jury)
- Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Tisdale, 185 So.2d 916 (Miss. 1966) (circumstantial evidence and negligence standards)