Raney v. Jennings
| Decision Date | 20 December 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 42797,42797 |
| Parties | Mrs. J. H. RANEY v. James Judson JENNINGS and Maggie Raney Jennings. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Thomas H. Pearson, Clarksdale, for appellant.
Brewer, Brewer & Luckett, Clarksdale, for appellee.
This is a suit for personal injuries, wherein a demurrer to the amended declaration of the appellant in the Circuit Court of Coahoma County, Mississippi was sustained and the amended declaration dismissed on appellant's refusal to amend further.
The declaration in part alleged:
'On April 22, 1962, Plaintiff was invited by the Defendants to visit their home and spend the day, being an Easter Sunday, at their home at 844 School Street, Clarksdale, Mississippi. Plaintiff was spending the day with Defendants and ate lunch with them on that day.
'After eating lunch, Plaintiff, who was 73 years of age, and of small size and stature, started to go out of the back door of the house, on the back porch, and into the back yard. She had never been out of the door, on the porch, or in the yard, she was not aware of the physical condition of the property of the backdoor and passageway through which she had to pass to go into the backyard. As a matter of fact, the passageway from the kitchen onto the back porch and down the back steps was a dangerous passageway, because of the narrowness of the passageway and the location and proximity of the back screen door to the back steps and porch. The screen door was so located as to make it dangerous for a person coming out of the backdoor to go down the back steps, in that there was only seven inches clearance between the edge of the screen door and the edge of the porch and in that it was inconvenient and impractical to permit the screen door to close before entering on the back steps. The screen door was closed by two (2) strong springs which exerted great pressure. Because of the physical condition and existing situation, it was necessary that a person going out of the backdoor hold the screen door open until after such person had stepped from off the backporch on to the back steps, or else the screen door would swing closed and strike the person then standing on the back porch. Because the person would, of necessity, be standing at the edge of an unguarded porch and because the screen door was equipped with strong springs, it was very probable that a person standing on the edge of the porch and being struck by the screen door would be thrown off the porch unless such person were of sufficient physical size and strength to withstand the shock or impact from the closing door. The existence of this dangerous condition had been known for several years by Defendants, who had failed to take action to correct such situation. The Defendants knew, also, that several other persons had fallen or been knocked down in the same location because of the dangerous passageway, as above described. In spite of the existence of this condition, however, and the failure of Defendants to take any action to correct the situation and even though the defendants knew that other persons had been injured because thereof, and even though both Defendants knew that Plaintiff was elderly in age and small and slight in size and stature, nevertheless, they failed to alert or warn her of the dangerous conditions there existing, of the proper and correct way to walk out the back door and down the back steps, or that the screen door would swing closed with great force and hit her, if she failed to step off the porch before letting the door go.
'As plaintiff started to leave the back porch and go on to the back steps, she was suddenly knocked off the edge of the porch, down the steps, and into the back yard, because of the narrowness of the passageway and the screen door swinging closed striking, pushing, and knocking her over the edge of the porch.
'The injuries and disabilities sustained by Plaintiff were the direct and proximate result of the wilful, wanton, active, and affirmative negligence of the Defendants, who were so negligent in the following respects:
(1) In permitting the dangerous condition to exist on their premises, to their knowledge, without correcting same;
(2) In failing to apprise plaintiff of said dangerous condition even though they were aware thereof and even though they realized the hazard presented to Plaintiff in traversing thereon;
(3) In inviting plaintiff on their premises without exercising reasonable care for her safety;
(4) In failing to make the condition reasonably safe;
(5) In failing to warn Plaintiff of the condition and of the risk involved therein; and,
(6) In failing to assist Plaintiff in traversing the said dangerous passageway or advising her of the proper mode of traversing same.'
The facts in this case could very easily have been taken from the case of Wright v. Caffey, 239 Miss. 470, 123 So.2d 841, (1960). In this case the appellant's name is Raney and appellee's name is Jennings, and it appears that the appellant is the sister-in-law of the appellee instead of the mother. Both appellants were visiting in the home of the appellee for lunch. Both appellants were elderly and received rather serious injuries in falls in or about the premises of appellee. The amended declaration was filed after the original demurrer, adding on the allegations of wilfulness and wantonness as required in a suit against a host, in order to become liable. It is true the allegations are that the area was dangerous because of the small clearance and the fact that you had to step off the porch before you could close the door. They alleged further that the appellee failed to warn her of any dangerous condition there existing, and they were guilty of wilful, wanton, active and affirmative negligence when she went out the back door and the screen door came back and caused her to fall from the porch.
It was not pointed out in the declaration, but had to be a matter of fact, that she was going out the door and was apprised of the strength of the spring on the back door by reason of pushing it open herself. The six allegations of negligence as set out above were following the allegations of wilful, wanton, active and affirmative negligence on the part of the appellees. Nowhere is it alleged that the appellee knew or had reason to know that the appellant was going near the back door of their house and no reason therefor appears. Although there may have been allegations of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Little by Little v. Bell
...her. In determining whether the Bells breached their duty of care in regards to Andrea, this Court's decision in Raney v. Jennings, 248 Miss. 140, 158 So.2d 715 (1963), provides a helpful discussion of willful and wanton conduct in regards to a social concluded under the facts presented tha......
-
Hall v. Cagle
...security which the host and members of his family who reside with have." Little, 719 So.2d at 761 (quoting Raney v. Jennings, 248 Miss. 140, 147-48, 158 So.2d 715, 718 (1963)). ¶ 42. The majority holds that a genuine issue of material fact exists in this matter. However, this holding is uns......
-
City of Jackson v. Johnson
...which requires knowingly and intentionally doing a thing or wrongful act." Turner , 735 So. 2d at 230 (quoting Raney v. Jennings , 248 Miss. 140, 158 So. 2d 715, 718 (1963) ). Reckless disregard "is usually ‘accompanied by a conscious indifference to consequences, amounting almost to a will......
-
City of Jackson v. Johnson
... ... doing a thing or wrongful act." Turner , 735 ... So.2d at 230 (quoting Raney v. Jennings , ... 248 Miss. 140, 158 So.2d 715, 718 (1963)). Reckless disregard ... "is usually 'accompanied by a conscious ... ...