Hoffman v. Planters Gin Co., Inc.
358 So. 2d. 1008 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A premises owner is liable for injury proximately caused by their affirmative or active negligence in the operation of their business when a licensee's or invitee's presence is known, subjecting them to the standard of ordinary and reasonable care, rather than the lesser duty to merely refrain from willful or wanton injury.
Facts:
- Randy Hoffman, a 14-year-old, frequently accompanied his father, a truck driver, to the Planters Gin Company to transport cottonseed.
- On January 21, 1976, Randy entered a seed house tunnel at the gin which contained a revolving auger in a recessed trough, partially covered by removable plates.
- To expedite the flow of seed, Randy, his father, and a gin employee entered the tunnel to shovel seed into the auger.
- The gin manager, R.L. White, saw the group in the tunnel and admonished them to 'be careful and not get into the auger.'
- After his father and the employee left, Randy remained in the tunnel sweeping seeds.
- When an employee called to him, Randy turned, slipped on some loose cottonseed, and his right foot fell into the moving auger.
- As a result of the accident, Randy Hoffman's right leg was amputated below the knee.
- There were no warning signs posted, and the entrance to the tunnel was not locked.
Procedural Posture:
- Randy Hoffman, by and through his father Earl Hoffman, filed a tort suit against Planters Gin Company, Inc., in the Circuit Court of Sunflower County, Mississippi (trial court).
- At the conclusion of the trial, the court granted a peremptory instruction in favor of the defendant, Planters Gin Company, Inc., on the grounds that Hoffman was a licensee to whom the defendant only owed a duty not to willfully or wantonly injure.
- The plaintiff, Randy Hoffman, appealed the trial court's 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 landowner owe a duty of ordinary and reasonable care to a known licensee who is injured by the landowner's active operations on the premises, rather than the lesser duty of merely refraining from willful or wanton injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Patterson, Chief Justice
Yes. A premises owner is liable for injury caused by active negligence in the operation of a business when the presence of a licensee or invitee is known, which subjects the owner to a standard of ordinary and reasonable care. The court held that the traditional legal distinctions between a licensee and an invitee have little significance once the landowner knows of a person's presence and engages in affirmative actions involving them. The court distinguished between passive negligence (related to the condition of the premises) and active negligence (related to ongoing operations). While the duty to a licensee for a passive condition is merely to avoid willful or wanton injury, the duty for active conduct is one of reasonable care. Here, the operation of the auger constituted an 'active operation,' and the gin manager's knowledge of Randy's presence near it created a duty of ordinary care. The warning to 'be careful' was insufficient as a matter of law to absolve the defendant of liability, as a jury could find it was an invitation to remain so long as care was used, especially given Randy's age and education level.
Analysis:
This decision significantly modifies Mississippi's premises liability doctrine by formally adopting the active/passive negligence distinction. It elevates the duty of care owed to a known licensee from merely refraining from willful or wanton injury to the higher standard of reasonable care when the injury results from the landowner's active operations. This ruling aligns Mississippi with the modern trend in tort law, which moves away from rigid status classifications (invitee, licensee, trespasser) in favor of a more flexible standard based on foreseeability and the circumstances of the injury. The case makes it more difficult for business owners to escape liability for injuries caused by their ongoing activities simply by classifying the injured party as a licensee.
Unlock the full brief for Hoffman v. Planters Gin Co., Inc.