198 So. 3d 393
Miss. Ct. App.2016Background
- Wilbanks, a licensed residential builder hired to install cable boxes, was injured in a crawlspace when he contacted an electrified dryer vent duct beneath Hickman’s home. He suffered electrical burns and sued Hickman for negligence (premises liability).
- Hickman had remodeled and hired electricians previously; an outlet for the dryer had been partially installed by an electrician (Wilhite) who did not finish, and a friend (Kilgo) later moved and plugged in the dryer and cut the vent hole. Hickman had used the dryer a few times and told Wilbanks it left clothes damp.
- Wilbanks had been under Hickman’s house several prior times (including a lengthy visit to reroute plumbing) and was an independent contractor/business invitee when injured.
- Wilbanks alleged Hickman had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous electrified vent or that someone acting under her authority created the hazard, and that she breached her duty to warn or make the premises safe.
- The trial court granted Hickman’s summary judgment motion, concluding no genuine issue that Hickman had actual or constructive knowledge; Wilbanks appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hickman had constructive knowledge of the electrified dryer vent | Wilbanks: Hickman knew dryer didn’t work, had prior wiring problems in house, so she should have inspected and discovered the hazard | Hickman: She never entered crawlspace, had no reason to know; Wilbanks had equal/superior knowledge as contractor | Court: No genuine dispute — Hickman lacked constructive knowledge as a matter of law |
| Whether Hickman created or authorized the dangerous condition | Wilbanks: Someone acting under Hickman’s authority may have created the hazard, imposing liability | Hickman: No evidence her agents created the condition; electrician didn’t finish outlet; Kilgo plugged in dryer claiming outlet already existed | Court: No evidence linking Hickman or her agents to creation of hazard; summary judgment affirmed |
| Application of owner liability statute limiting duty to independent contractors | Wilbanks: §11-1-66 doesn’t apply because he lacked knowledge of hazard | Hickman: Even if statute applies, Wilbanks had equal/superior knowledge and cannot recover | Court: §11-1-66 not dispositive here, but Hickman still wins because no constructive knowledge or evidence of creation |
| Whether a reasonable inspection would have revealed the hazard | Wilbanks: Reasonable inspection given facts would have found the energized vent | Hickman: No duty to search inaccessible crawlspace for hidden electrical defect | Court: Reasonable care would not have required discovery of the concealed hazard; no duty to inspect crawlspace in these circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Imperial Palace of Miss., LLC, 147 So.3d 318 (Miss. 2014) (limits owner liability for conditions that could not be discovered with reasonable care)
- Vu v. Clayton, 765 So.2d 1253 (Miss. 2000) (attic highly inaccessible; owners had no constructive knowledge as a matter of law)
- Jacox v. Circus Circus Miss., Inc., 908 So.2d 181 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (constructive knowledge requires condition to exist long enough to be discoverable by reasonable care)
- Moore v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 173 So.2d 603 (Miss. 1965) (mere existence of defect is insufficient absent discoverability by due care)