Johnson v. T & T Farms, Inc.
| Decision Date | 09 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2017-CA-01565-COA,2017-CA-01565-COA |
| Citation | 283 So.3d 1130 |
| Parties | Oshaun JOHNSON, Appellant v. T & T FARMS, INC. f/k/a Hickory Hollow Farms Inc., Appellee |
| Court | Mississippi Court of Appeals |
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: JOHN D. SMALLWOOD
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: RAYMOND PATRICK TULLOS, Raleigh
BEFORE CARLTON AN D J. WILSON, P.JJ., AND TINDELL, J.
CARLTON, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Oshaun Johnson appeals the Simpson County Circuit Court's order granting summary judgment in favor of T & T Farms Inc.1 On appeal, Johnson asserts that the circuit court erred by finding that Johnson failed to establish prima facie cases of both negligence and liability, and that the circuit court erred in deciding material issues of fact reserved for a jury.2
¶2. After our review, we find no error. We therefore affirm the circuit court's order granting summary judgment in favor of T & T Farms.
FACTS
¶3. In October 2013, Johnson was employed as a night shift clean-up crew member at Polk's Meat Products Inc. Johnson alleged that on October 10, 2013, while cleaning a machine at Polk's, his left hand and arm became caught in the exposed chain drive of the meat grinder. Johnson stated that his hand remained stuck in the meat grinder until he was eventually discovered by co-workers. As a result of his injuries, Johnson suffered multiple hand fractures, which required surgery and skin grafts.
¶4. In December 2014, Johnson filed a complaint against T & T Farms, Robert Reiser & Company Inc. (Reiser), John Does 1-5, and John Doe Entities 1-5 asserting claims of negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability. In his complaint, Johnson alleged that Polk's purchased a used meat grinder from T & T Farms, which was distributed by Reiser. (Reiser was later dismissed from the case by agreement of the parties.) Johnson claimed that T & T Farms made modifications to the meat grinder, including removing safety devices associated with the chain drive, and that T & T Farms then sold the meat grinder to Polk's in an altered, dangerous, and defective condition. Johnson asserted that as a result of the defective meat grinder, he sustained severe injuries to his left hand and arm, lost wages, and loss of earning potential. Johnson sought compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of five million dollars.
¶5. On June 12, 2017, T & T Farms filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that no genuine issue of material fact existed and that Johnson failed to demonstrate the essential elements of the claims set forth in his complaint. T & T Farms explained that Polk's came into possession of the meat grinder at issue when Polk's purchased T & T Farms in its entirety. Along with the meat grinder, Polk's acquired all assets and liabilities associated with T & T Farms. T & T Farms asserted that T & T Farms ceased to exist almost fifteen years prior to Johnson's injuries and that Johnson failed to demonstrate any duty that T & T Farms owed him. T & T Farms argued that, although it entered into a contract with Polk's for a business acquisition, Johnson failed to demonstrate that his relationship with Polk's—fifteen years following the execution of the contract—was one contemplated by the original parties for purposes of liability and duty. T & T Farms further asserted that pursuant to the standard provided by the Mississippi Products Liability Act for failure-to-warn cases, Johnson's claims failed because Johnson did not demonstrate that the ordinary user or consumer would have required a warning or instruction from T & T Farms. See Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-63(a) (Rev. 2014).
¶6. T & T Farms also argued that prior to Polk's acquisition of the meat grinder, T & T Farms asserted that it performed regular maintenance and cleaning of the machine, but at no time did it change, alter, or modify the meat grinder. T & T Farms claimed that Johnson failed to disclose any evidence showing that T & T Farms modified or altered the meat grinder while it was under the control of T & T Farms or that T & T Farms engaged in any negligent behavior that caused Johnson's injuries.
¶7. On August 11, 2017, Reiser also filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that Johnson failed to offer any proof that Reiser breached any duty owed to him. Reiser stated that it purchased the meat grinder at issue in 1975 and then sold the meat grinder to Morton Frozen Foods in 1976. Reiser maintained that it neither designed nor manufactured the meat grinder at issue, nor did it make any modifications or alterations to the meat grinder. Reiser asserted that since 1980 it has not received any information relating to the location, use, or condition of the meat grinder. Reiser also argued that Johnson was barred from prevailing on his claim for breach of warranty by the applicable statute of limitation,3 and Johnson was precluded from recovery against Reiser as an innocent seller.
¶8. On October 9, 2017, the circuit court held a hearing on both of the summary judgment motions. At the hearing, Johnson's counsel explained how Johnson received his injuries: while Johnson was at work cleaning a machine, one of Johnson's co-workers opened the cover to the chain drive on the meat grinder without Johnson's knowledge. Johnson turned, and his arm went into the chain drive of the meat grinder. Johnson's counsel claimed that Terry Windham, the owner of T & T Farms who sold the business to Polk's in 1998, made it "relatively clear" in his deposition testimony that machines like the meat grinder at issue are usually manufactured with an electronic interlock feature which shuts the machine off when someone opens part of the machine that exposes moving parts. Johnson's counsel argued that although Windham was aware of interlock features on other machines, he failed to inform Polk's that the meat grinder at issue did not have an interlock feature. Johnson's counsel clarified that Windham did not "necessarily [possess] a duty to warn, but a duty to ... [update] the machine" and install an interlock feature on the meat grinder.
¶9. After hearing arguments, the circuit court stated: The circuit court ultimately determined that The circuit court also recognized that Johnson and Reiser reached an agreement dismissing Reiser from the lawsuit.
¶10. On October 20, 2017, the circuit court entered its order granting summary judgment in favor of T & T Farms. That same day, the circuit court also entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of Reiser.
¶11. On October 31, 2017, Johnson filed his notice of appeal from the circuit court order granting summary judgment in favor of T & T Farms.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶12. This Court reviews a circuit court's "grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion has been made." Holifield v. City Salvage Inc ., 230 So.3d 736, 738 (¶ 5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting Karpinsky v. Am. Nat'l Ins ., 109 So.3d 84, 88 (¶ 9) (Miss. 2013) ). We recognize that summary judgment "shall be rendered if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Id. (quoting M.R.C.P. 56(c) ). "Numerous, immaterial facts may be controverted, but only those that affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Id. (quoting Summers ex rel. Dawson v. St. Andrew's Episcopal Sch ., 759 So.2d 1203, 1208 (¶ 12) (Miss. 2000) ). If one party swears to one version of events and the opposing party swears that the opposite is the truth, there are issues of fact sufficient to deny a motion for summary judgment. Harris v. Int'l Truck And Engine Corp ., 912 So.2d 1101, 1104 (¶ 5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). In addition, the party opposing summary judgment "may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Froemel v. Estate of Froemel , 248 So.3d 876, 878-79 (¶ 8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (quoting M.R.C.P. 56(e) ).
DISCUSSION
¶13. On appeal, Johnson argues that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment despite the existence of the following material issues of fact: whether the meat grinder's failure to contain an interlock feature qualifies as a defect and whether T & T Farms possessed actual or constructive knowledge of the defect. Johnson asserts that he presented sufficient evidence to meet his burden of proof in establishing (1) a prima facie case of negligence under the common law and (2) a prima facie case of strict liability under the Mississippi Products Liability Act (MPLA), codified in Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-1-63. As a result, Johnson maintains that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of T & T Farms.
¶14. In support of his argument, Johnson claims that he met his burden of proving that the meat grinder was defective at the time T & T Farms sold the machine to Polk's because it lacked an interlock mechanism to shut off the machine when moving parts have been opened or exposed. Johnson submits that as the seller of the product, T & T Farms possessed a duty to warn Polk's that the meat grinder did not have an electronic interlock feature, and was therefore defective, and T & T Farms breached this duty. Johnson argues that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial