Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

negligenceliabilitysummary judgmentwill

summary judgmentwill

Related Cases

Thompson v. Lucas, 219 So.3d 583

Facts

Gloria Thompson and Mildred Lucas were at a casino where Thompson loaned Lucas twenty dollars. The next day, Thompson drove to Lucas's home to collect the money. While leaving, Thompson tripped and fell in the driveway, leading her to file a complaint against Lucas for negligence under premises liability, claiming she was an invitee at the time of her injury.

Thompson and Mildred Lucas were with family and friends at a casino in Greenville, Mississippi. While at the casino, Lucas ran out of cash. As a result, Thompson loaned Lucas twenty dollars.

Issue

Was Thompson a licensee or an invitee at the time of her injury, and did Lucas breach any duty owed to her?

Thompson argues the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment based on Thompson's status as a licensee, and genuine issues of material fact exist as to Thompson's status.

Rule

A landowner owes a licensee a duty to refrain from willfully or wantonly injuring him, and the status of the visitor determines the duty owed by the landowner.

A landowner owes a licensee a duty to refrain from willfully or wantonly injuring him.

Analysis

The court analyzed Thompson's status by determining that she entered Lucas's property with permission to collect a debt, not under an invitation. The court found that Thompson's purpose was solely for her own benefit, and there was no evidence that Lucas willfully or wantonly caused Thompson's injuries. Thus, the court concluded that Lucas did not breach the duty owed to Thompson as a licensee.

Thus, we find that at the time of her injury, Thompson was a licensee.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Lucas, concluding that Thompson was a licensee and that Lucas did not breach any duty owed to her.

Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court's entry of summary judgment and dismissal of the complaint.

Who won?

Mildred Lucas prevailed in the case because the court found that Thompson was a licensee and that Lucas did not willfully or wantonly injure her.

We find no evidence that Lucas willfully or wantonly injured Thompson.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571, 73 S.Ct. 921, 97 L.Ed. 1254, 1953 A.M.C. 1210

Florsheim Shoe Co. v. U.S., 19 C.I.T. 295, 880 F.Supp. 848, 17 ITRD 1289

Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199, 3 Dall. 199, 1796 WL 882, 1 L.Ed. 568

Thyssenkrupp Materials NA Inc. v. United States, 498 F.Supp.3d 1372

Gibson-Thomsen Co., Inc. v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp., 2 Cust.Ct. 172, 1939 WL 4379, C.D. 117