Evans v. Hodge
2008 WL 3843838, 2008 Miss. App. LEXIS 492, 2 So. 3d 683 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In premises liability cases, summary judgment is inappropriate if there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the injured party's legal status (invitee or licensee), especially when that status may depend on the unexamined financial relationship between the property owner and a third-party resident for whose benefit the injured party visited.
Facts:
- On January 2, 2001, Diane Evans traveled to Bonnie Hodge's home in Pocahontas, Mississippi, to deliver mail to Betty Russell.
- Betty Russell, Evans's college friend and neighbor, was temporarily living with Bonnie Hodge because Russell's house in Jackson had recently burned down.
- Russell and Hodge had a usual arrangement where Hodge would drive to Jackson to retrieve Russell's mail from Evans, but on this particular day, Russell asked Evans to deliver the mail to Hodge's home.
- Evans believed Russell was expecting an important insurance check related to her house fire, which motivated the special mail delivery.
- After delivering the mail and chatting with Russell, Evans left Hodge's home while Hodge was in a front den watching television.
- As Evans exited Hodge's home, she slipped and fell on a doormat covered with ice and snow located at the entrance.
Procedural Posture:
- In July 2001, Diane Evans sued Bonnie Hodge for negligence in the Circuit Court of Hinds County, Mississippi, claiming she was an invitee.
- In August 2002, Evans filed a motion to find Hodge in contempt for failing to appear for a deposition.
- In October 2002, the trial judge entered an agreed order denying Evans's contempt motion and holding the matter in abeyance until Hodge was deemed competent by her treating physician to submit to a deposition.
- In September 2005, Hodge filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Evans was a licensee at the time of the accident.
- On March 6, 2006, the trial court granted Hodge's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Evans's claim with prejudice.
- Evans appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals of Mississippi, with Evans as the appellant and Hodge as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court commit reversible error by granting summary judgment in favor of Bonnie Hodge when there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding Diane Evans's legal status as an invitee or licensee on Hodge's property?
Opinions:
Majority - Barnes, J.
No, the trial court committed reversible error by granting summary judgment because there remained a genuine issue of material fact concerning Diane Evans's legal status on Bonnie Hodge's property. In premises liability cases, the duty of care owed by a landowner depends on whether the injured person is an invitee, licensee, or trespasser. An invitee is someone on the premises for the mutual advantage of both parties, while a licensee is there for their own convenience with the owner's permission. Social guests are typically licensees, while business visitors are invitees. A landowner owes licensees a duty to refrain from willful or wanton injury, but owes invitees the higher duty to keep the premises reasonably safe and warn of hidden dangers. The court found that Evans's status was intertwined with Betty Russell's status. While Evans was invited by Russell, not Hodge, the Restatement (Second) of Torts suggests that a visitor's status (like Evans's) can be derived from the 'necessities of others who are themselves upon the land for such a purpose' (like Russell). Furthermore, family members, usually licensees, can become invitees if they pay valuable consideration for their stay on the possessor’s land. The record was 'devoid of evidence' as to whether Russell was paying Hodge for her stay, which could establish a business relationship, making Russell an invitee and potentially conferring invitee status upon Evans. Since the issue of Russell's potential 'business visitor' status with Hodge was not explored due to a lengthy stay in proceedings and lack of discovery, a material factual dispute remained unresolved, making summary judgment premature and inappropriate.
Analysis:
This case highlights the stringent standard for granting summary judgment in premises liability actions, particularly when critical factual determinations, such as a visitor's legal status, remain unresolved due to insufficient discovery. The court's application of the Restatement (Second) of Torts expands the analysis of visitor status beyond direct invitation from the property owner, suggesting that a visitor's status can be derivative of another resident's relationship with the owner. This creates a potential avenue for plaintiffs to establish invitee status even without a direct business relationship with the landowner, by examining the landowner's relationship with a third party on the premises. Future cases may explore how 'valuable consideration' beyond traditional rent might establish an invitee relationship, complicating premises liability defenses for hosts.
