Snapp v. Harrison
699 So.2d 567, 1997 WL 539357 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's violation of a safety statute, which constitutes negligence per se, does not establish liability unless the plaintiff proves that the statutory violation was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.
Facts:
- Ed and Russell Snapp leased a warehouse bay adjacent to a bay leased by Johnny Harrison, who operated a painting service.
- Harrison stored over 100 gallons of flammable paint thinner, much of it in plastic containers, along the wafer board party wall separating the two bays.
- Harrison's storage method violated several city fire and building codes, including requirements for permits, container types, shelving, and a two-hour fire wall.
- On July 19, 1990, a fire of undetermined origin started in Harrison's bay after all his employees had left for the day.
- The fire ignited the paint thinner, causing it to burn much hotter and faster than an ordinary fire, and it quickly spread to the Snapps' bay.
- The Snapps' personal and business property stored in their bay sustained significant fire and smoke damage.
- Official investigations concluded the fire's origin was undetermined, and an open police arson file listed Harrison as the victim.
Procedural Posture:
- Ed and Russell Snapp filed a complaint against Johnny Harrison in the Lowndes County Circuit Court, a trial court of first instance.
- The Snapps amended their complaint to include an allegation of negligence per se based on Harrison's violation of city codes.
- Following a trial, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant, Harrison.
- The Snapps filed a motion for a new trial, which the Circuit Court denied.
- The Snapps, as appellants, appealed the denial of their motion to the Supreme Court of Mississippi, with Harrison 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:
Does a defendant's violation of municipal fire code ordinances (negligence per se) render him liable for a plaintiff's property damage when the plaintiff fails to prove that the defendant's violation was the proximate cause of the fire's ignition?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Smith
No. A defendant's negligence per se for violating a safety ordinance does not establish liability unless the plaintiff proves that this negligence was a proximate cause of the resulting injury. The court found that while Harrison was negligent per se for violating several fire codes, the Snapps failed to meet their burden of proving causation. The plaintiffs presented no evidence showing how the fire started or linking Harrison's code violations to the fire's ignition. In fact, the Snapps' own expert witness conceded on cross-examination that the storage violations 'had anything to do with the cause or origin of the fire in any form or fashion.' Because the origin was unknown and no causal connection was established between Harrison's negligence and the start of the fire, the jury's verdict for Harrison was supported by the evidence. The court also held that an erroneous jury instruction on the Snapps' potential comparative negligence was harmless error, as the jury found for the defendant outright, indicating their decision was based on the lack of causation, not on any fault of the Snapps.
Dissenting - Justice McRae
Yes. A defendant's negligence per se should establish liability where the violation created the exact danger the ordinance was designed to prevent and contributed to the plaintiff's damages, even if the ignition source is unknown. The dissent argued that the majority imposed an unfairly high burden on the Snapps by requiring them to prove the exact cause of the fire's ignition. The purpose of the fire codes Harrison violated was to prevent the rapid spread of an intense fire. Harrison's actions created a dangerous condition, and his negligence was a clear contributing cause to the extent of the Snapps' damages. The dissent asserted that the Snapps only needed to show that the violation contributed to their injuries, not that it was the sole cause or the source of ignition. Furthermore, the dissent argued that the conflicting and improper jury instructions, particularly the one incorrectly finding the Snapps negligent per se, were confusing and constituted reversible, not harmless, error.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the critical distinction between breach of duty and causation in tort law. It clarifies that establishing negligence per se by proving a statutory violation only satisfies the duty and breach elements of a negligence claim. The plaintiff retains the full burden of proving that the defendant's statutory violation was the proximate cause of the injuries. The decision makes it significantly more difficult for plaintiffs to recover in cases where the direct cause of an accident, like the ignition source of a fire, is unknown. It prevents the application of a strict liability standard for statutory violations, requiring a concrete causal link between the violation and the harm, not just the presence of a violation at the scene of the harm.
