Green v. Allendale Planting Co. - 954 So. 2d 1032 (Miss. 2007)

Rule:

Often the question of whether the plaintiff appreciated and understood the risk is a question of fact for the jury, however, in certain circumstances the facts may show as a matter of law that the plaintiff understood and appreciated the danger. However, in the absence of evidence that the injured person knew of the danger, or that the danger was so obvious that he must be taken to have known of it, it cannot be held that he assumed the risk of injury therefrom. The elements that must be found in order to constitute a defense of assumption of risk are generally stated in some such terms as the following: (1) knowledge on the part of the injured party of a condition inconsistent with his safety; (2) appreciation by the injured party of the danger in the condition; and (3) a deliberate and voluntary choice on the part of the injured party to expose his person to that danger in such a manner as to register assent on the continuance of the dangerous condition.

Facts:

Appellant Larry Green brought an action for damages for personal injuries against his employer, Allendale Planting Company (Allendale), and The KBH Corporation (KBH), collectively "the Defendants," for injuries he sustained while attempting to determine the cause of an unusual noise he heard while operating a mule boy, owned by his employer, Allendale, and manufactured by KBH. The Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The trial court originally granted summary judgment in part to both Defendants. The Defendants later filed a Motion to Reconsider. Upon review of the Motion to Reconsider, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of both Defendants on all issues. Appellant challenged the decision. 

Issue:

Under the circumstances, could the defendants be held liable for appellant’s injuries? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The supreme court affirmed, stating that the employer did not breach its duty to provide the employee with reasonably safe work environment. The employer did not fail to warn or instruct him of the dangers associated with the mule boy, and did not fail to provide the employee with a reasonably safe work tool. The employee needed no warning to understand the danger of coming into close proximity with the moving chains attached to the mule boy. In regard to the manufacturer, the employee proceeded to approach the mule boy without first turning off the machine, even though he appreciated that it was a dangerous situation. Thus, there was no violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-63 (Rev. 2002).