244 So. 3d 888
Miss. Ct. App.2018Background
- On Oct. 30, 2012, Wayne Booth, a Whitestone truck driver (independent contractor for Southern Hens), was bear‑hugged and thrown into pallets by Southern Hens employee A.J. Caldwell while on Southern Hens’ premises.
- Booth claimed serious back injuries, missed work, and sued Southern Hens for negligence, gross negligence, and failure to supervise; Caldwell was later terminated.
- Southern Hens moved for summary judgment arguing Caldwell’s conduct was outside the scope of employment and that the company had no notice of dangerous tendencies, so it could not be vicariously or directly liable.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Southern Hens, finding no genuine issue of material fact on scope of employment or negligent supervision because the conduct was sudden, unauthorized horseplay, and Southern Hens lacked notice of violent tendencies.
- Booth appealed; the Court of Appeals reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Caldwell’s actions were within the course and scope of employment | Booth: Caldwell’s conduct occurred on premises during work duties and therefore may be within scope | Southern Hens: The bear‑hug and shove were unauthorized horseplay/assault, not job‑related | Court: Not within scope; summary judgment for Southern Hens affirmed |
| Whether Southern Hens failed to supervise or had notice of violent tendencies | Booth: Employer should have supervised and prevented the assault; supervisor’s response shows failure | Southern Hens: No actual/constructive knowledge of violent tendencies; rules prohibited horseplay and Caldwell signed acknowledgment | Court: No evidence of foreseeability or prior violence; no genuine issue—summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Karpinsky v. Am. Nat’l Ins. Co., 109 So. 3d 84 (Miss. 2013) (standard of review and summary judgment principles)
- Children’s Med. Grp. P.A. v. Phillips, 940 So. 2d 931 (Miss. 2006) (elements for conduct to be within course and scope of employment)
- Partridge v. Harvey, 805 So. 2d 668 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (employer not liable when employee abandons employment for personal purpose)
- Stribling v. Rushing’s Inc., 115 So. 3d 103 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (premises owner’s duty regarding foreseeable third‑party assaults)
- Holmes v. Campbell Props. Inc., 47 So. 3d 721 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (need for actual or constructive knowledge of employee’s dangerous tendencies for failure‑to‑supervise liability)