Johnson v. Goodson
Decision Date | 18 April 2019 |
Docket Number | NO. 2018-CA-00455-SCT,2018-CA-00455-SCT |
Citation | 267 So.3d 774 |
Parties | Judy S. JOHNSON v. Ronnie GOODSON |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: WILLIAM SCOTT MULLENNIX, CODY W. GIBSON, JACKSON
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: J. SETH McCOY, WILLIAM M. DALEHITE, JR., JACKSON
BEFORE RANDOLPH, C.J., ISHEE AND GRIFFIS, JJ.
¶1. Judy S. Johnson appeals the affirmance by the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County of the judgment of the County Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County granting Ronnie Goodson's motion for summary judgment. Both courts rejected Johnson's claim of general negligence and granted judgment in favor of Goodson based on premises-liability law.
¶2. Were premises liability the only law applicable, the courts would be affirmed. But given the facts presented, both erred. We reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion. This Court offers no opinion about Goodson's negligence, vel non . That question remains for the trier of fact.
¶3. Johnson claims that she was injured while she was an invited guest on Goodson's property and a passenger in his golf cart. Johnson sued Goodson in the County Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, alleging that Goodson had operated the golf cart carelessly, recklessly, and negligently, causing Johnson to be thrown about in the vehicle and to suffer injuries.
¶4. Johnson filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that, at the time of the accident, Goodson was the operator of a motor vehicle, and, as such, the applicable standard of care was that of a reasonable person. Johnson argued that Goodson had breached his duty of care by operating a vehicle on his property in an unsafe manner, proximately causing Johnson's injuries. Goodson responded that Johnson was a licensee, that he did not breach any duties owed to her as a licensee, and that the standard Johnson sought was not applicable.
¶5. In Goodson's motion for summary judgment, he sought to be shielded from ordinary negligence by alleging that Johnson's cause of action was one of premises liability1 and that he, as a landowner, only owed Johnson, a licensee, a duty to refrain from wilfully, wantonly, knowingly, or intentionally injuring her.
¶6. At all times, the parties have agreed that the facts were not in dispute. The only question was what law applied to the undisputed facts. Despite their contentions, the county court determined that disputed issues of fact remained and denied both Goodson's and Johnson's motions for summary judgment. Goodson filed an unopposed motion to stay, which was granted by the county court pending this Court's ruling on Goodson's petition for interlocutory appeal, which was denied.
¶7. Subsequent to the denial, Goodson filed a motion for reconsideration. The county court found that "premises liability law applies and not the Rules of the Road of the State of Mississippi." Johnson then filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the county court erred in finding that premises-liability law applied. However, Johnson requested that if the county court found that premises-liability law applied, summary judgment should be granted in favor of Goodson.
¶8. In its final order, the county court found the following:
(Emphasis added.) The county court granted summary judgment in favor of Goodson and dismissed him with prejudice. Johnson filed her notice of her appeal to the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County.
¶9. The circuit court affirmed the county court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Goodson. Johnson appealed to this Court.
ANALYSIS
¶10. The only issue before this Court is whether summary judgment was properly granted in favor of Goodson based on premises-liability law.
On appeal, the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment is reviewed de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion has been made. Summary judgment is proper when 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 judgment as a matter of law.
Maness v. K & A Enters. of Miss. , LLC , 250 So.3d 402, 409 (Miss. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted). We find that both courts erred. Premises-liability law is not the only legal standard applicable to the facts of this case. Unrelated to the ownership of the land, this case involves whether the driver of a golf cart drove in an unsafe manner, causing injuries to a passenger in the golf cart. The incidental fact that the driver of the golf cart was also the owner of the property on which the accident occurred is of no moment.
Johnson's complaint did not raise premises-liability issues and did not rely upon Goodson's landowner status. She pleaded negligence—did Goodson operate his golf cart in the same manner as would a reasonably prudent person? Goodson cannot be absolved of putative negligence simply because he owned the land on which he was driving. Negligence, if any, is to be determined by the trier of fact.
¶13. The Hoffman Court cited Astleford v. Milner Enterprises, Inc. , 233 So.2d 524, 525-26 (Miss. 1970),...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Robertson v. Murray (In re Murray)
...or similar circumstances." Pointer v. Rite Aid Headquarters Corp., 327 So.3d 159, 172 (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) (quoting Johnson v. Goodson, 267 So.3d 774, 778-79 (Miss. 2019)). Murray did not act as a reasonable and prudent person would have, as she implicitly admitted when she blamed her supp......
-
Edwards v. Belk Dep't Stores LP
...on a landowner's premises as a result of 'conditions or activities' on the land . . . .'" [75] at p. 5 (quoting Johnson v. Goodson, 267 So. 3d 774, 777 (Miss. 2019)). There is also no dispute in this case that Ms. Edwards was an invitee on the Belk premises. In Mississippi, it is well-estab......
-
Leal v. Univ. of S. Miss.
...challenges to summary judgment de novo, and we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Johnson v. Goodson , 267 So. 3d 774, 776 (Miss. 2019) (quoting Maness v. K & A Enters. of Miss., LLC , 250 So. 3d 402, 409 (Miss. 2018) ). We apply Mississippi Rule of Civil Proced......
-
Samson v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am.
...de novo, "viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion has been made." Johnson v. Goodson , 267 So. 3d 774, 776 (Miss. 2019) (quoting Maness v. K & A Enters. of Miss., LLC , 250 So. 3d 402, 409 (Miss. 2018) ). Summary judgment is appropriate when "th......