Paula Hathorn v. Louisville Utilities Commission
2016-CA-01317-SCT
Miss.Sep 28, 2017Background
- In August 2014 Paula Hathorn tripped on a depressed water-meter box set in a sidewalk in front of an O’Reilly Auto Parts in Louisville, MS and sued O’Reilly, the City of Louisville, and the Louisville Utilities Commission (the Commission).
- Hathorn settled separately with O’Reilly and the City and executed a "Full, Final, and Absolute Release" in favor of the City that expressly released the City and its "successors, agents, ... insurers, subsidiaries, sister or parent companies, assigns, employees, ... and any and all other persons ... associated, affiliated, and/or in privity of interest therewith."
- Hathorn continued litigation against the Commission only; the Commission moved for summary judgment asserting, inter alia, that the City release barred recovery against it and that it enjoyed MTCA immunity.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Commission on three grounds, including that the City release covered the Commission because the Commission was a municipal subsidiary under Miss. Code Ann. §21-27-13.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court reviewed the record de novo, concluded the release’s terms were clear and unambiguous, that the Commission is a subsidiary of the City, and that Hathorn thereby released the Commission; the court affirmed summary judgment and limited its decision to that dispositive issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hathorn's settlement/release with the City released the Commission | Hathorn contended she did not intend to release the Commission; argued lack of privity, lack of consideration from Commission, ambiguity, unilateral mistake, fraud, or unconscionability | The Commission argued the release’s plain language released the City and its subsidiaries/affiliates and that the Commission is a municipal subsidiary (thus covered) | Court held the release was clear and unambiguous and, because the Commission is a municipal subsidiary, Hathorn’s release to the City also released the Commission; summary judgment affirmed |
| MTCA discretionary/ministerial immunity | Hathorn argued Commission could be liable for failing to maintain the meter box | Commission argued it had discretionary-function immunity / no ministerial duty to keep the meter box flush with sidewalk | Court did not reach this as dispositive issue resolved release question; trial court had found immunity but Supreme Court limited its decision to release issue |
| Premises-liability / ownership (whether City or Commission owned meter boxes) | Hathorn argued Commission could be liable on premises or negligence theories regardless of release | Commission argued City owned assets and the release to City covered ownership-based claims | Court did not need to resolve ownership because release disposed of claims; trial court found City owned assets but Supreme Court limited decision to release issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Union Carbide Corp. v. Nix, Jr., 142 So. 3d 374 (Miss. 2014) (apply contract-law principles to settlement agreements; interpret within four corners unless ambiguous)
- Smith v. Falke, 474 So. 2d 1044 (Miss. 1985) (release of one joint tortfeasor may not bar claims against others when parol evidence shows intent to release fewer parties)
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, 401 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1971) (parol evidence rule applies to parties to a written instrument but not strangers)