Lexplug logoLexplug

Leffler v. Sharp

Supreme Court of Mississippi
891 So. 2d 152 (2004)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A business invitee loses their protected status and becomes a trespasser when they go beyond the bounds of their invitation by entering an area not open to the public. The property owner then only owes the duty to refrain from willfully or wantonly injuring the trespasser.


Facts:

  • Walter Leffler was a patron at the Quarter Inn, a restaurant and lounge managed by Kim Free.
  • The Quarter Inn was located on the second floor of a building owned by Sharp Enterprises, of which Harry Sharp was president.
  • The lease agreement between Free and Sharp explicitly stated that the Quarter Inn would not have access to the adjacent roof terrace.
  • Sharp had previously been advised by an architect and structural engineer that the roof was unsafe for use and had informed Free of this defect.
  • Leffler, seeing other individuals on the roof, presumed it was open to patrons.
  • A locked glass door leading to the roof was stenciled with the words "NOT AN EXIT."
  • Leffler climbed through a small window, located 32.5 inches above the floor, to access the roof.
  • While walking on the roof, Leffler fell through it and sustained serious injuries.

Procedural Posture:

  • Walter Leffler filed a lawsuit against Kim Free (d/b/a Quarter Inn) and Harry Sharp (and Sharp Enterprises) in the Warren County Circuit Court, the trial court of first instance.
  • After discovery, both Free and Sharp filed motions for summary judgment.
  • The trial court judge granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, determining that Leffler was a trespasser at the time of the injury, and dismissed all of his claims.
  • Leffler, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Locked

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 business patron, who was an invitee inside a lounge, lose that status and become a trespasser when he voluntarily exits the establishment by climbing through a window onto an adjacent, unapproved rooftop area?


Opinions:

Majority - Cobb, Presiding Justice

Yes. A business patron who was an invitee loses that status when he goes beyond the bounds of his invitation. The court reasoned that premises liability in Mississippi follows a three-step analysis: determining the injured person's status (invitee, licensee, or trespasser), defining the duty owed for that status, and assessing whether that duty was breached. Leffler was an invitee inside the Quarter Inn, as his presence was for the mutual benefit of himself and the business. However, an invitee's protected status is limited to the areas to which they are invited. By climbing through a small, elevated window to access a roof that was explicitly excluded from the lease and secured by a locked, marked door, Leffler went 'beyond the bounds of his invitation' and became a trespasser. He was not a licensee because the owners gave no conduct that would imply permission to enter the roof. As a trespasser, the only duty owed to him by Free and Sharp was to refrain from willful or wanton injury. The owners' actions—locking the door, marking it as not an exit, and discussing further security measures—did not constitute a 'conscious disregard of a known serious danger' but were reasonable steps to deny access, thus they did not breach the duty owed to a trespasser.



Analysis:

This decision reaffirms the traditional, status-based framework for premises liability in Mississippi. It clarifies that a person's legal status is not static and can change based on their location and actions on a property. The ruling emphasizes that the scope of invitation is a key factor in determining an owner's duty, shielding businesses from liability when patrons venture into clearly unauthorized and dangerous areas. This precedent strengthens the position of landowners against claims from individuals injured after entering restricted parts of a property, so long as the owner has not engaged in willful or wanton misconduct.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Leffler v. Sharp (2004) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Leffler v. Sharp