Corley v. Evans
| Decision Date | 16 January 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 2001-CA-00762-SCT.,2001-CA-00762-SCT. |
| Citation | 835 So.2d 30 |
| Parties | Scott CORLEY v. James F. EVANS and Stacy Evans (Hamrick). |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
S. Wayne Easterling, Eugene Coursey Tullos, attorneys for appellant.
John B. MacNeill, Jason Scotch Ehrlinspiel, Adam Bradley Kilgore, Vicki R. Leggett, Rance N. Ulmer, attorneys for appellees.
EN BANC.
CARLSON, J., for the Court.
¶ 1. After a judgment was entered in this premises liability case in accordance with a $2.5 million verdict in favor of plaintiff Scott Corley (Corley), the circuit court granted the motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), filed by the landowners, James F. Evans (James) and his daughter Stacy Evans Hamrick (Stacy). Feeling aggrieved by this post-trial action by the trial court, Corley has appealed to this Court asking that we reinstate the initial $2.5 million judgment entered on the jury verdict. James and Stacy have cross-appealed, requesting that should this Court determine that the trial court erred in granting their JNOV motions, this case should be reversed and remanded for a new trial based on alleged errors committed at trial. Finding that the JNOV was proper, we affirm the trial court's decision.
INTRODUCTION
¶ 2. Corley was shot accidentally by a friend on the Evanses' land at a crawfish boil sponsored by Stacy Evans.1 Corley brought suit for his injuries and damages sustained as a result of the shooting, and after a jury trial, the jury returned a jury verdict for $2.5 million in his favor, and the jury also assigned eighty percent (80%) liability to James, and twenty percent (20%) liability to Stacy.2 Quite interestingly, those percentages corresponded to the percent of ownership each had in the land. Consistent with the jury verdict, the Circuit Court of Smith County, Honorable Robert G. Evans, presiding, entered judgment in favor of Corley and against James and Stacy in the amount of $2,000,000 (assessed against James) and $500,000 (assessed against Stacy). However, after post-trial motions were filed, Judge Evans, vacated the judgment via a grant of the JNOV motions filed by James and Stacy. On appeal, Corley argues that he met his required burden of proving that the accident was reasonably foreseeable and therefore the trial court erred in granting the JNOV. In the alternative, he urges this Court to reconsider current Mississippi premises liability law. James and Stacy cross-appeal requesting a new trial if the trial court's grant of the JNOV is reversed.
¶ 3. We find that the evidence was not sufficient to support the jury verdict in this case under current Mississippi premises liability law, which we decline to revisit; and therefore, the trial judge's grant of JNOV was correct.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN THE TRIAL COURT
¶ 4. James owned a 1,000 acre tract of land in Smith County and had previously conveyed a twenty percent (20%) interest in 184 acres to his daughter, Stacy. The property was mostly pasture land on which was situated one barn. In 1990, Stacy began hosting crawfish boils on the land, and while the 1993 event giving rise to this lawsuit was the eighth annual event, this was only Stacy's fourth time to actually host the crawfish boil. The land was never surveyed, so it was unclear whether the crawfish boil was held on the land in which Stacy had an interest. James's only involvement in the event was his brief attendance.
¶ 5. On May 1, 1993, Corley attended the crawfish boil with his friends Eric Burton, Steve Harden,3 and Jeff Crane. As the only one in the group 21 years old or over, Burton bought beer for them before they got to the festival. All four paid admission to the festival and then parked their two vehicles in the field. They intended to camp overnight and pitched a tent near their vehicles soon after they arrived, and then they began socializing with those assembled. It rained off and on through the night. All four were drinking beer before they arrived and continued their imbibing throughout the evening.
¶ 6. Two weeks before the crawfish boil, Harden borrowed a .22 caliber pistol from Burton, who testified that he was uncertain as to why Harden wanted to borrow the pistol.4 As Harden entered the gate onto the property where the crawfish boil was being held, the pistol was beside him on the driver's seat. Harden testified that he had unloaded the pistol the day before the crawfish festival and put the bullets in the ashtray of his car.5 The pistol was taken out of the car on at least two occasions by different individuals.
¶ 7. Sometime after midnight, Harden shot Corley with the .22 pistol in the face below his left nostril, and the bullet lodged in Corley's skull. Harden testified that he had been holding the pistol for thirty minutes6 or so when he slipped and fell backwards and the pistol discharged. Harden also testified as follows:
¶ 8. As a result of this tragic accident, Corley suffered severe permanent injuries, incurred extensive medical bills, was unable to complete his education, and was incapable of holding meaningful employment.
¶ 9. As part of her hosting duties, Stacy distributed fliers for the event. Having hosted the last three events, Stacy knew that there would be alcohol consumption at the event. She posted a sign that said "No Alcoholic Beverages Permitted," she did not sell alcohol on the premises, and she did not attempt to verify the ages of the attendees.7 She testified that she advertised campers were welcome, but she did not know how many patrons would camp because of frequent rains in the area. Stacy also provided two street lights to illumine the area but believed the lighting might have been reduced by the rains. Stacy originally called McDonald Security Service to provide security for the event; however, upon learning that this particular service was unavailable for the crawfish boil, Stacy contacted Vincent Security Service (Vincent Security). Stacy was familiar with the competence of the Vincent Security personnel because she had previously attended a party in Meridian at which Vincent Security had provided security and she was impressed with their performance. Also, Stacy had inquired of the host at the Meridian party as to her opinion of the capability of Vincent Security and received a favorable recommendation from the Meridian host.
¶ 10. The Vincent Security officers were dressed in uniforms resembling those worn by sheriff's department personnel. Stacy testified the only problem she had ever had at her three previous crawfish boils occurred during the very first one in 1990, when she had to call the sheriff's office to remove someone from her property. The instructions Stacy gave the security guards were "make sure everybody was okay." She also told them to walk around and keep a check on everything. Stacy did not know if the shooting occurred on her property or her father's property. She estimated 700 people were in attendance at the crawfish boil.
¶ 11. Stacy testified that she paid all the bills related to her portion of the land, including taxes and electricity, and that she took care of the place. She never asked her father's (James's) permission to have the crawfish boil. She considered the place hers, and she controlled the land. The crawfish boil was not her father's idea, he had nothing to do with the planning of the event, and he did not have any financial interest in the crawfish boil.
¶ 12. Stacy personally observed no fights or scuffles. She testified: The only problem she had ever had was at her first crawfish boil when someone left his drunken brother-in-law on the premises and he would not leave. She testified she had no way to have possibly anticipated a shooting. James testified that he never discussed the crawfish boil with his daughter.
¶ 13. Daniel Gray attended the crawfish boil and witnessed the shooting:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Wal–Mart Stores E., L.P.
...facts, the majority removes the claim from negligence per se and places it within the realm of general negligence. Cf. Corley v. Evans, 835 So.2d 30, 38–39 (Miss.2003) (premises owner liable for assault by third party if the owner has actual or constructive knowledge of the assailant's viol......
-
Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Bailey, No. 2002-CA-00736-SCT.
...v. Derryberry Co., 553 So.2d 40, 42 (Miss.1989); Stubblefield v. Jesco, Inc., 464 So.2d 47, 54 (Miss.1984)). See also Corley v. Evans, 835 So.2d 30 (Miss.2003). In asking for a judgment as a matter of law, Janssen is asking this Court to hold that the verdict reached by the jury may not sta......
-
Jane Doe v. Hallmark Partners, LP
...and when not reasonably safe, to warn only where there is a hidden danger or peril that is not in plain and open view." Corley v. Evans, 835 So.2d 30, 37–38 (Miss. 2003) (quoting Caruso v. Picayune Pizza Hut, Inc., 598 So.2d 770, 773 (Miss. 1992) ). "[T]his duty extends to protecting tenant......
-
3M Co. v. Johnson
...v. Derryberry Co., 553 So.2d 40, 42 (Miss.1989); Stubblefield v. Jesco, Inc., 464 So.2d 47, 54 (Miss.1984)). See also Corley v. Evans, 835 So.2d 30 (Miss.2003). In asking for a judgment as a matter of law, 3M is asking this Court to hold that the verdict reached by the jury may not stand. S......