Doe v. Jameson Inn, Inc.
2011 WL 103543, 56 So.3d 549, 2011 Miss. LEXIS 27 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Mississippi premises liability law, a person who enters another's property for their own convenience, pleasure, or benefit, especially for an illegal purpose, is classified as a licensee. A landowner's duty to a licensee is limited to refraining from willful or wanton injury, and this standard applies even to a minor who comprehends the potential dangers of their actions.
Facts:
- Kelvin Washington rented a room at the Jameson Inn and gave the keys to several teenage boys so they could celebrate a birthday.
- Ann Doe, a thirteen-year-old, and her friend were at a movie theater across the street from the Jameson Inn.
- A man at the theater offered the girls marijuana, and they agreed to accompany him and the group of teenage boys to the hotel room.
- Ann Doe admitted in a deposition that she went to the Jameson Inn for the purpose of smoking marijuana.
- Inside the hotel room, after the group had smoked marijuana, Ann Doe was raped by one of the young men.
Procedural Posture:
- Jim and Barbara Doe filed a complaint on behalf of their daughter, Ann Doe, against Jameson Inn, Inc., Kitchin Hospitality LLC, and Erica Covington in the Hinds County Circuit Court (a trial court).
- Venue for the case was transferred to the Rankin County Circuit Court.
- The defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that no material facts were in dispute and they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- The Rankin County Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that Ann Doe was a licensee and that the defendants had not breached the duty owed to her.
- The Does (appellants) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a hotel owner owe a duty greater than refraining from willful or wanton injury to a minor who enters the premises for her own convenience and for the illegal purpose of smoking marijuana, thereby making her a licensee?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Pierce
No. A hotel owner does not owe a duty greater than refraining from willful or wanton injury, as the minor's status under these circumstances is that of a licensee. The court first established this case falls under premises liability, not simple negligence, because the injury resulted from conditions or activities on the land. Ann's status was a question of law for the judge, as the dispositive fact—her reason for entering the hotel—was undisputed based on her own admission to smoke marijuana. Because Ann entered for her own pleasure and benefit, and not for any mutual benefit with Jameson Inn, she was a licensee, not an invitee. The duty owed to a licensee is only to refrain from willful or wanton injury, and there was no evidence the defendants engaged in such conduct. The court also declined to abandon the common-law distinctions of invitee, licensee, and trespasser or to create a special exemption for minors, particularly since Ann admitted she understood the potential danger of her actions.
Dissenting - Justice Kitchens
Yes. A hotel owner may owe a greater duty because the minor's legal status as an invitee versus a licensee is a disputed question of material fact that should be decided by a jury, not by a judge on summary judgment. The dissent argues that the facts were not undisputed, pointing to Ann's conflicting statements about her reason for going to the hotel and her attacker's initial denial that they went to smoke marijuana. A jury could reasonably find that Ann was an implied invitee because she was the invited guest of a hotel guest. Citing persuasive authority from Florida, the dissent contends that a hotel should foresee that its guests will have social callers, who are thus implied invitees. Because Ann's status is a genuinely disputed factual issue, the trial court's grant of summary judgment was improper and the case should be remanded for trial.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms Mississippi's strict adherence to the traditional common-law categories of invitee, licensee, and trespasser in premises liability cases. The court explicitly rejects the modern trend followed by many other jurisdictions to adopt a universal 'reasonable care under the circumstances' standard. The ruling underscores that an entrant's purpose is the critical factor in determining their status, and engaging in an illegal activity on the premises solidifies licensee status. Furthermore, the court's refusal to create a special protective exception for minors who knowingly enter dangerous situations signals that a minor's admitted comprehension of risk can override the usual legal presumptions of their incapacity.
