I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 5 - CA- 0 2 2 7 1 - S CT LAR RY GREEN
v. A L L ENDA L E P

L A NT I NGC OMP

A NY A ND T HE KB H COR P ORAT

ION
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 11/ 29/ 2005 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N
. L A R R Y O
. L E W IS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: BOLI VAR COUN TY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L ANT : E L L I S T UR NAGE ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEES : TI M OTH Y M I CH AEL PEEPL ES W IL T O N V
. B Y A R S , III CH A RL ES S. H EW I N S LAW REN CE D
. W AD E NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 04/ 26/ 2007 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

EN BA NC. EAS LEY, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1
. T hi s cas e i s a n a c t i on f ord a mage s f

orp e r s on a l i nj ur i e s b r oughtby L ar r y G r een ( G r een) i n the C i r cui tC our tof B ol i var C ount y agai ns thi s empl oyer , A l l endal e Pl ant i ng C om pany ( A l l endal e) , a nd The K B H C orpor at i on ( K B H ) , col l ect i vel y “the D ef endant s , ” f

or injuries h e su stai n ed w h il e a tt em p ti n g to d eterm ine th e c au se o f an u n u su al no ise h e h ea rd wh i l e o p e r a t i n g a mu l e b o y , o wn e d b y h i s e mp l o y e r , Al l e n d a l e , a n d ma n u f a c tu r e d b y KB H. T he D ef endant s f i l ed a M ot i on f

orSum m ary Judgm ent . T he tr i al courtor i gi nal l y gr ant ed

### Acc ording to KBH, a mulebo y is a tra ct or- pull ed and power ed f ar m impl em ent 1 

### manufa ct ure d by KBH desi gned to re ce ivecott on from a cott on picke r in the f

ie ld and the n trans port it to ‘ modul e bui lde rs . Af

te r a cott on picke r’ s bin is full , thecott on is dum ped f rom the co ttonpick er’s bininto the mu le bo y’s b asket. T he mu le bo y ‘s hy drau lic system lifts thebas ket

abovethemodul e bui lde r and ti lt s it into a dum ping pos ition s o that t

he c ott on can be transf

er re d int o the modul e buil der f or com pac ting. Whe n themul e boy i s e le vat ed to th e dump ing p ositio n, there are fo ur sets o f meterin g chain s connectedwith“chainslat” cross bar s whi ch aredesig ned t o al low an exa ct am ount of

cotton t o be unl oade d int o the modul e bui lde r. The m et ering c hains rotatearound what is themul e boy’ s l ower

si de whe n ra is ed and ac tivat ed, and the c ott on is depos it ed in a c ontroll ed manner by thetrac tor

dri ver i nt o them od

ul e bu i l de r

be l ow . 2 su m m a ry ju d g m e n t in p a rt to b o th D e fe n d a n ts. T h e D e fe n d a n ts la ter filed a M o tio n to R ec o n side r. U p o n rev iew o f th e M o ti o n to R ec o n sid er, th e tri al co u rtg ran ted s u m m ary ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f b o th D e fe n d a n ts o n a ll i ss u e s. F e e lin g ag g rie v e d , G re e n n o w a p p e a ls th e ju d g m e n t o f th e B o liv a r C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt to th is C o u rt. FACTS ¶2. A l l endal e pur chas ed the mul e boy i n que s t i on f r om K B H a ppr oxi m at el y thr ee t o f our
w eeks pr i ort o G r een’ s acci dent
. A l l endal e di d notm ake a ny m odi f i cat i ons t o the mul e boy 1 and had notexper i ence d any pr obl ems w i th i t . A l though i tw as G r een’ s f i r s tcott on s eas on
o p era ti n g the m u le bo y , h e w as an e x p erien ce d farm h an d
. G ree n h ad o p era ted v ariou s farm i m pl ement s t hatcoul d be at t ache d t o t r act or s such as cul t i vat or s , pl ow s , bush hogs, di s ks , and gr ai n cart s . M or eover , G r een ha d been e m pl oyed atA l l endal e f or appr oxi m at el y tw el ve y e a rs b e fo re th e a c c id e n t. ¶3. O n Sept ember28, 2001, the day of the acc i dent , G r een w as oper at i ng the m ul e boy
w h e n h e h e a rd a lo u d , u n u su a l n o ise c o m in g fro m th e b a c k o f th e m u le. G re e n lef t th e m u le

### 3

boy runni ng a nd s t epped dow n f r om the tr act or . I n or dert o det erm i ne the exa ctcaus e of t he
n o ise , G re e n k n e lt d o w n in c lo se p ro x im ity to th e fo u r m e ter in g c h a in s. G re e n lo st h is bal ance . I n an att empt t o r ees t abl i s h hi s bal ance , G r een’ s han d cam e i nt o cont actw i t h t he
m ov i ng chains, and he lostthree f i ng ers . ¶4
. G r een f

i l ed s ui ta ga i ns tA l l e nd a l e a l l e gi ng mul t i pl e the or i e s of e mpl oy e r l i abi l i t y. Gr e e n l a t e ra me n d e d h i s o r i g i n a l c o mp l a i n tt o a s s e r ta p r o d u c tl i a b i l i ty c l a i m a g a i n s tKB H. B oth D ef

endant s f i l ed a mot i on f

ors um m ary j udgm ent . T he tr i al courtori gi nal l y gr ant ed
su m m a ry ju d g m e n t in p a rt to b o th D e fe n d a n ts. T h e tria l c o u rt in iti a lly fo u n d th a t A llen d a le
w as ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t er of l aw on the f ol l ow i ng i s s ues : ( 1) def ect i ve des i gn and/ orl ack of

s af ety guar d; ( 2) f

ai l ur e t o adequat el y s upervi s e, i ns truct , and/ ortr ai n; and ( 3) f ai l ur e t o w arn. H ow ever , t he t r i al courtf ound thata genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al f

actexi s t ed
o n th e fo llo w in g iss u e s: ( 1 ) f a ilu re to p ro p e rly m a in tain , re p a ir, an d in sp e c t th e m u le b o y to dis cov er hazards, and (2) f ai l ure t o m ai ntai n a safe w orki ng env i ronm ent. T he tr i al cou rtal so init ial ly fo u n d that K B H w as e n ti tl ed to jud g m en t as a m att er o f l aw o n the issu e o f fail u re t o w arn. T he tr i al courthel d thatG r een kne w of the dange rassoci at ed w i th the movi ng chai ns and thatno amount of w arni ng w oul d have pr event ed hi s i nj ur i es . H ow ever , the tr i al
c o u rt fo u n d th a t a g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial fa c t ex iste d re g a rd in g w h e th e r G re e n v o lu n tar ily and deli berat el y ex po sed him sel f t o the dan ger posed by the m ov i ng chains. ¶5. U pon re vi ew of the m ot i on t o r econs i der , the tr i al courtf ound thatboth A l l endal e and K B H w er e e nt i t l e d t o j ud gmen ta s a matt e ro f l a w o n a l l i s s ue s . The tr i a l c ou r thel d t hat G r een ha d f

ai l ed t o setforth any spec i f i c f act s t o supporthi s al l egat i ons thatA l l endal e w as

### 4

negl i gent . A s t o G r een’ s def ect i ve des i gn cl ai m agai ns tK B H , t he t r i al cour tconcl uded that th e re w a s n o g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial fa c t re g a rd in g w h e th e r h e v o lu n tar ily a n d d e lib e ra tely expos ed hi m s el f

t o a danger ous condi t i on. T he cour tf ur therhel d thatG r een’ s ow n t es t i m ony
es t abl i s hed thathi s a ct i ons w er e del i ber at e and vol unt ary. G r een vol unt ar i l y knel tdow n next to t he m ov i ng chai ns, w i th t he kn ow l edg e that they w ere dan gerous. H i s acti o n s w ere
s uf f i ci entt o i ndi cat e ac cept ance of the dange r ous condi t i on. ¶ 6
. A g g rie v e d b y th e trial c o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t, G re e n ti m e ly filed n o tice o f h is a p p e a l. G ree n lat er fil ed w ith this C o u rta m o ti o n for a n ex tens ion o f ti m e to fi le his ap p ell ate b ri ef. T hi s C our tgra nt ed t he ext ens i on and expl i ci t l y st at ed thatG r een’ s appel l at e br i ef w as due on J une 21, 2006. H ow ever , both A l l endal e and K B H r ai s e on appe al thatthe ce r t i f i cat e of
s ervi ce on G reen’ s bri ef r ef l ect s thathe di d notf

i l e hi s br i ef

unt i l J une 23, 2006, tw o days
a ft e r t h e d e a d lin e . R u le 3 1 o f t h e M is s is s ip p i R u le s o f A p p e lla te P ro c e d u re (M .R .A .P .) st at es: If a n a p p e llan t fa ils to file th e a p p e llan t’s b rie f w ith in th e tim e p ro v id e d b y th is rul e orw i thi n the t i m e ext ended, the appe al m ay be di s m i s s ed on m ot i on of the appel l ee oron the Supr eme C our t ’ s ow n m ot i on as pr ovi ded i n R ul e 2. R ule 2 of the M
. R
. A
. P
. st at es: W hen ei thercourt , on i t s ow n m ot i on oron mot i on of a party, det erm i nes that di s m i s s al m ay be w arr ant ed underthi s Rul e 2( a) ( 2) , the c l e r k o f t h e S u p r e me C o u rt sh a ll

g ive w ritten n o ti ce to th e p a rty in d efa u lt , a p p risi n g th e p a rty o f t h e n a tu r e o f t h e d e fi c ie n c y . I f the party i n def

aul tf ai l s t o corr ectthe def i ci ency w i thi n fourt een ( 14) days af t erthe not i f

i cat i on, the appe al s hal l be d ism iss e d b y th e c ler k o f th e S u p re m e C o u rt. (E m p h asis ad d ed ).

### 5

¶7. A l though G r een’ s br i ef w as f i l ed af t er the deadl i ne, thi s C our t never gave hi m not i ce of the al l eged de f

aul t . A ddi t i onal l y, G r een’ s br i ef w as f i l ed onl y tw o days af

t ert he dea dl i ne, and ac cor di ng t o R ul e 2( a) ( 2) of the M
. R
. A
. P. , w el l w i thi n the f our t een da ys thi s C our tgi ves a party t o corr ecta d efi ci ency. T her ef or e, thi s C our tf

i nds thatG r een’ s appea l i s not di s mi s s e d p ur s ua ntt o Rul e 2 o f the M
. R. A
. P. DI S CU S S I ON ¶8. G r een c ont ends thatthe tr i al c our ti m pr oper l y gr ant ed s um m ary j udgm enti n f avor of A l l endal e Pl ant i ng C om pany and K B H C orpor at i on. I n r evi ew i ng a tr i al court ’ s rul i ng on a mot i on f

ors um m ary j udgm ent , thi s C our tconduct s a de novo r evi ew a nd “exa m i nes al l t he evident i ary m at t ers b efor e u s, incl ud i ng adm i ssi on s i n p l eadings, answ ers t o int err og at ori es, depos i t i ons , and af

f i davi t s . ” P r ic e v. P u r d u e P h a r m a Co ., 920 So. 2d 479, 483 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng A e tn a Ca s . & S u r. Co . v. B e r r y, 6 6 9 S o . 2 d 5 6 , 7 0 (M is s . 1 9 9 6 ), over r ul ed i n par ton othergr ounds , O w ens v. Mis s . Far m B ure au Cas . I ns. Co. , 910 So
. 2d 106 5, 1 0 7 4 (M i ss. 2005) )
. “The evi dence m us tbe vi ew ed i n the l i ghtmostf avor abl e t o the party agai ns tw hom the mot i on has been made. ” P r i ce , 920 So. 2d at483 ( ci t i ng B e r r y, 669 So. 2d at70)
. “The
m ovi ng party has the bur den of demonstr at i ng thata genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al f

actexi s t s , and the n o n -m o v ing p arty m u st be g iven the b en efito f th e d o u b t con c e rn in g the e x ist en ce o f a
m at er i al f

act . ” Ho w a r dv . C it

y o f B ilo x i, 2006 M i s s . A pp. L exi s 893, 3 ( ci t i ng Cit y of Jacks on v. Sutton , 7 9 7 S o . 2 d 9 7 7 , 9 7 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 )). ¶9
. “Issu es o f fac t su ffi cien t to req u ir e a d en ial o f a m o tio n fo r su m m ary jud g m en t are obvi ous l y pr es entw her e one pa r ty s w ear s t o one ver s i on of the mat t eri n i s s ue and a not her

### 6

party t akes the oppos i t e pos i t i on. ” P r i ce , 920 So. 2d at 483 (c i t i ng A m er i can L egion L a dn ie rP o s t N

o . 4 2 v. O c e a n S

p r in gs, 5 6 2 S o . 2 d 1 0 3 , 1 0 6 (M iss . 1 9 9 0 )). “ If a n y triab le is s u e s o f f

a c t e x is t, th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s d e c is io n to g ra n t s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t w ill b e re v e rs e d .” P r i ce , 9 2 0 S o . 2 d a t 4 8 4 . O th e rw is e , th e d e c is io n is a ff ir m e d
. Id
. at483 ( ci t i ng Mil lerv. Meeks , 7 6 2 S o . 2 d 3 0 2 , 3 0 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 )). I. W h e th e r th e tr ia l co u r t e r r e d in g r a n tin g su m m a r y ju d g m e n t in f avor of A l l endal e. ¶10. G r een cont ends that the tr i al court s houl d not have gr ant ed A l l endal e’s m oti on f or
s um m ary j udgm ent . G r een ar gues on appea l t hatt her e ar e genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fa ctt hat
s houl d be r es ol ved by the j ury. C ontr ary t o G r een’ s as s ert i ons , A l l endal e ar gues thatthe tr i al
courtpr oper l y di s m i s s ed G r een’ s c l ai m s a s a mat t erof l aw . A l l endal e f

ur thercont ends t hat G r een’ s negl i gence w as the s ol e pr oxi m at e caus e of hi s i nj ur i es . A l l endal e al s o as s ert s that G r een w oul d nothave s us t ai ned any i njur i es i f he had s t opped the machi ne and then at t em pt ed t o i nves t i gat e i t s m al f unct i on. B y f

ai l i ng t o do s o, G r een vol unt ary s ubj ect ed h im self t o an o p en an d o b v iou s d an g er. ¶11. W e f

i nd thatthe tr i al co urtd i d no terrin grant i ng s um m ary j udgm enti n f avor of A llen d a le b e c a u se a s a m a tter o f la w , A llen d a le d id n o t b re a c h its d u ty to p ro v id e G re e n w ith
a r eas onabl y s af

e w ork en vi r onm ent , f

ai l t o w arn ori ns tructhi m of the dange r s as s oci at ed
w ith th e m u le b o y , o r p ro v id e h im w ith a re a so n a b ly sa fe w o rk to o l.

A . D u ty to p ro v ide a sa fe w o rk en v iron m en t.

### 7

¶1 2. G r een a r gues on appea l t hatA l l e nd a l e b r e a c he d i t s d uty t o pr ovi de hi m w i t h a
r eas onabl y saf

e w or k envi r onm entby f ai l i ng t o prope r l y m ai nt ai n and re pai rthe mul e boy. T h is C o u rt h a s p re v io u sly h e ld th a t “a n em p lo y e r o w e s its e m p lo y e e s th e n o n d e leg a b le d u ty t o pr ovi de i t s e m pl oyees w i th a s af e pl ace t o w or k. ” Monroe C ount y E lec. P ow erA s s ’n v. P ace , 461 So. 2d 739, 748 (1984 ). G r een of f er s no evi dence t o s uppor thi s cl ai m t hat A ll en d ale fail ed to p rov ide h im w ith a re aso n ab ly sa fe w o rk e n v ir o n m en t. In fa ct, h is sw o rn depos i t i on t es t i m ony def eat s hi s clai m agai ns tA l l endal e. D ur i ng hi s depos i t i on, G r een adm i t t ed thatthe m u le b o y w as o nly approx i m at el y thr ee t o four w eeks old. G reen al so acknow l edged thathe i ns pect ed and pe r f or m ed the gene r al m ai nt enanc e of l ubr i cat i ng the
m et er i ng chai ns att ache d t o the mul e boy eve ry day. G r een a l s o admi t s i n hi s appel l at e br i ef thatbe tw een the dat e of

pur chas e and the acc i dent , A l l endal e di d notmake any modi f i cat i ons t o the mul e boy. ¶1 3. T o avoi d s umm a r y j ud gmen t , the n on - mova ntmus ts etf or t h s peci f

i c f act s t hat demonstr at e a ge nui ne i s s ue of a m at er i al fa ctt hatm er i t s tr i al i ns t ead of m er e uns ubs t ant i at ed
a lle g a tio n s . R i chm ond v. B enchm ark Constr. Corp ., 6 9 2 S o . 2 d 6 0 , 6 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). A l though G r een w as i nj ur ed w hi l e w or ki ng on hi s empl oyer ’ s pr emi s es , A l l endal e di d not br eac h i t s duty t o pr ovi de hi m w i th a r eas onabl y s af e w ork en vi r onm ent . G r een’ s i nj ur i es
w er e the r es ul tof hi s hand get t i ng caughti n the movi ng chai ns att ache d t o the mul e boy. T he f act s cl ear l y i ndi cat e thatA l l endal e w as m erel y an empl oyerw ho pur chas ed a mul e boy. T her e i s no evi dence w i thi n the r ecor d t o i ndi cat e thatA l l end al e p er f or m ed any a ct s or
o m iss io n s th a t cr e a ted a n u n sa fe w o rk p lac e fo r G re e n . T h e re fo re , A llen d a le is e n tit led to

### 8

j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw on thi s i s s ue. T he tr i al court ’ s gr antof s um m ary j udgm entw as appr opr i at e. B . D u ty t o w arn , trai n , or inst ru ct of kn ow n d an gers. ¶1 4
. G ree n also arg u es tha t A ll en d ale fail ed to w arn , tr ain, or instruc t him as to the d an g ers
asso ciated w ith o p era ti n g the m u le bo y in the n o n -du m p ing p o sit ion an d tho se d a n g e rs di s cl os ed i n the manuf

actur er ’ s m anual
. “I ti s [ the] duty of [ the] m as t ert o w arn and i ns truct hi s s ervant s as t o def

ect s ordanger s of w hi ch he know s , ori n exer ci s e of r eas onabl e ca r e and d ilig e n c e s h o u ld k n o w , a n d o f w h ic h th e s e rv a n t h a s n o k n o w le d g e , a c tu a l o r c o n s tru c tiv e .” Cole v. Tullos , 228 M i s s . 815, 90 So. 2d 32, 36 ( 1956)
. A m as t erhas no duty t o w arn of
o b v io u s d a n g e rs th a t are ap p a re n t an d cu sto m a ry in th e p e rfo rm a n c e o f w o rk
. L on g v. W o o lla r d , 249 M i s s . 722, 163 So. 2d 698, 707 ( 1964) ( ci t i ng L ong B each v. Spooner , 224 M iss . 2 4 6 , 7 9 S o . 2 d 8 3 3 , 8 3 6 (1 9 5 5 )). “ A w a rn in g o f a n o p e n a n d o b v io u s d a n g e r w o u ld p r o v i d e n o n e w i n f

o r ma t i o n t o th e p l a i n t i f

f
. . . I f i t ’ s [ th e th i n g wa rn e d o f ] a l r e a d y k n o wn t o the pl ai nti ff

, then the w arni ng s erves no purpos e. ” Vaughn v. Am br os ino , 883 So. 2d 1 1 6 7 , 1 1 7 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). ¶15. I n Vaughn , this C ou rthel d that i n fai l ure t o w arn cases, the o pen and ob vious defense is s till a c o m p le te b a r t o re c o v e ry . Id
. See Mayf iel d v. H airbender , 903 So. 2d 733, 735- 36 ( M i s s . 2005) ( hol di ng t hatthe gr antof s um m ary j udgm entw as appr opr i at e bec aus e the all eg ed h az ard w as o p e n an d o b v iou s an d k n o w n to the p lai n ti ff, p ri o r t o h er injuries). In V a u g h n , the def

endant ’ s form erhouseke eperbr oughts ui t , cl ai m i ng thatthe def endant ’ s dog
r an i nt o a l adderthatthe pl ai nt i f f w as us i ng, caus i ng the pl ai nt i f f t o f al l and s us t ai n s er i ous

### Whil e att em pting to rem ove the e nds, the em ploye e st eppe d on thepileof ends, and 2 

### slipp ed an d stru ck th e saw, resu ltingin aninjury to his rig ht h andandarm. Kir kland, 115 So . at 19 1. 9 in ju ri e s . Vaughn , 8 8 3 S o . 2 d at 11 6 8
. T h is C o u rtco n clud ed that alth o u g h the “ p lai n ti ff at t em pted t o cl assi fy hercase as a m ast er/ servan tm at t er, rather than a prem i se l i abil i ty case i nv olvi ng an i nvi t ee, . . . [ ther e i s no] di f f er ence i n the mast er ’ s duty, and thatof an ow ner
oroc cupi erof

a pr emi s es t o a n i nvi t ee. ” Id
. at1170. W e f ur therhel d thatthe compar at i ve
n e g lig e n c e s ta n d a rd a p p lied to th e o p e n a n d o b v io u s d e fe n se o n ly w h e n th e re w a s a c laim of a dange r ous condi t i on a nd notw hen ther e w as a c l ai m f orf ai l ur e t o w arn of

a dange r ous
c o n d itio n . I

d . at1170. ¶16. T he C our tr eas oned: St at ed di f

f er ent l y, a w arni ng of an open a nd obvi ous dangerw oul d pr ovi de no n e w in fo rm a tio n to th e p lain tiff. S tate d still a n o th e r w a y , a th in g w a rn e d o f is ei theral r eady know n t o the pl ai nt i f f , o r i t ' s not . I f

i t ' s al r eady know n t o the pl ai nt i f f , then the w arni ng s erves no purpos e. I f i ti s notal r eady know n t o the plai nti ff , then the thi ng w arned o f w as not open and ob vious in the fi rs t i ns t ance . Vaughn , 883 So. 2d at1170- 71. ¶ 1 7
. S im ila rl y , in a n o ld e r c a s e , Popl ar v il le Lum be rCo. v. Ki rkl

and , 149 M i s s . 116, 115 So. 191, 192 ( 1928) , thi s Courthe l d thati tw as err orf orthe tr i al courtt o s ubm i tthe ques t i on of the empl oyer ’ s l i abi l i ty i n notw arni ng the empl oyee t o the j ury beca us e the w arni ng w as
unnece s s ary. T he empl oyee i n Ki rkl and w as i njur ed w hi l e per f or m i ng hi s dut i es of
r e mo v i n g th e e n d s o f

a l u mb e rc u ts a w. Id
. at191. T hi s C our tconcl uded thatthe evi dence 2 d e m o n stra ted th a t th e e m p lo y e e d id n o t n e e d a w a rn in g to u n d e rsta n d th e d a n g e rs o f h is

### 10

d u tie s . Id
. a t192. H e knew and appr eci at ed the dange rof comi ng i nt o cont actw i th the cut
s a w w h ile re m o v in g th e e n d s o f th e ti m b e r. Id
. E ven i f the empl oyerhad i ns truct ed the empl oyee of

t he dange r , i tw oul d nothave made a di f f er ence , beca us e the empl oyee a l r eady k n e w o f t h e d a n g e r. I

d. See al s o Y az oo & M

. V. R. Co v. D owns , 109 M i s s . 140, 67 S o. 962, 9 6 3 (19 1 5 ). ¶18. I n D owns , the C our t hel d that a r ai l r oad empl oyee, w hos e dut i es cons i s t ed of pul l i ng outs pi kes hol di ng t he ol d r ai l s t ogether , w hi ch w as pr epar at ory t o pl aci ng new r ai l s on t he tr ack, w as notent i t l ed t o a w arni ng beca us e hi s dut i es w er e obvi ous l y danger ous t o an
a v e ra g e w o rk m a n . D owns , 1 0 9 M iss . 1 4 0 , 6 7 S o . a t 96 3
. T h e C o u rt sta ted , “[f]ro m th e fa c ts i n evi dence w e bel i eve that[ the] appel l antcoul d have r i ght f ul l y as s um ed that[ the] appel l ee pos s es s ed s uch expe r i ence and j udgm entor di nar i l y f ound i n w or km en of

hi s gra de, and that he w as r eas onabl y s ki l l ed i n the w or k he w as undert aki ng. ” Id
. ¶19. A ppl yi ng the st andar d art i cul at ed by thi s C our ton num er ous occa s i ons i n Vaughn , Ma y fie ld , Ki rkl

and , and D owns , G r een ne eded no w arni ng t o un ders t and the dange rof comi ng i nt o cl os e pr oxi m i ty w i th the movi ng chai ns att ache d t o the mul e boy. G r een w as
an exper i ence d f

arm ha nd a nd t es t i f

i ed thathe thor oughl y unde r s t ood the dange r s as s oci at ed
w i th oper at i ng and r epai r i ng f arm equi pm ent . H e oper at ed t he m ul e boy dai l y and per f or m ed the re q u ir ed m ainten an ce to the m ac h ine. T h u s, itis high ly li k ely th at G ree n h ad m o re k n o w ledg e a b o u t th e m u le bo y than h is em p loy er. ¶ 2 0
. A ltern a tiv e ly , e v e n if A lle n d a le fa iled to tra in o r in stru c t G re e n o n h o w to p ro p e rly
o p e ra te a n d re p a ir th e m u le b o y o r fa iled to w a rn h im o f th e d a n g e r as so c iate d w ith th e m u le

### 11

boy by notpr ovi di ng hi m w i th a copy of t he ow ner ’ s m anual , ther e i s no caus al connec t i on betw een thos e al l eged c l ai m s and G r een’ s i nj ur i es . T he pr oxi m at e caus e of G r een’ s i nj ur i es
w as hi s hand gett i ng caughti n the movi ng chai ns att ache d t o the mul e boy w hen he
acc i dent al l y l os thi s bal ance and f el l
. N o amount of

w arni ng, instruc t i on, ortr ai ni ng f r om A lle n d a le w o u ld h a v e p re v e n ted G re e n ’s in ju rie s. A c c o rd in g ly , A llen d a le is e n tit led to j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw on G r een’ s fai l ure t o w arn cl ai m . T he tr i al court ’ s gr antof
s um m ary j udgm entw as appr opr i at e.

C . D u ty to p r o v id e a r e a so n a b ly sa fe w o r k to o l. ¶21. L ast l y, G reen co ntends t hat A l l end al e p rovi ded hi m w i th a mul e boy thathad a def ect i ve des i gn beca us e i tl acke d a s af ety guar d t o covert he m ovi ng chai ns at t ache d t o t he
m ul e boy. T he M i s s i s s i ppi Pr oduct s L i abi l i ty A ct( M
. P. L
. A
. ) does notpr ovi de a c aus e of act i on fordefect i ve d esi gn againstan em ploye r w h o m erel y p urchased a p roduct. M i ss. C ode A nn. § 11- 1- 63 ( R ev. 2002). T he st at ut e onl y governs w hetherl i abi l i ty s houl d be im p o s e d o n e n titie s e n g a g e d in th e a c tu a l p ro d u c tio n o r t h e s a le o f g o o d s . I d. See a l

so H ar r is on v. B . F

. G oodr i ch , Co. , 881 So. 2d 288, 291 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2004)
. A ccor di ngl y, A l l endal e i s al s o ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a m att erof l aw as i tre l at es t o t hi s cl ai m . T he tr i al
court ’ s gr antof

s um m ary j udgm entw as appr opr i at e. II . W h e th e r th e tr ia l co u r t p r o p e r ly g r a n te d su m m a r y ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f K B H . ¶ 2 2
. Th e t r i a l c o u r tg r a n t e d s u mma r y j u d g me n ti n f a v o ro f KB H, f i n d i n g th a t KBH
e s t a b l i s h e d a c o mp l e t e d e f e n s e t o Gr e e n ’ s f

a i l u r e t o wa rn a n d d e f e c t i v e d e s i g n c l a i ms

### 12

br oughtpur s uantt o t he M
. P. L
. A
. I n Clark v. Bra s s Eagle, I nc . , 86 6 S o. 2d 45 6, 46 0 (M i ss. 2004) , thi s C our ts t at ed: T he M i s s i s s i ppi L egi s l atur e pas s ed the Produc t s L i abi l i ty A ct , M i s s . C ode A n n . § 1 1 - 1 -6 3 , c o d if

y in g s tr ic t lia b ility la w . Sm ith v. Mac k Tr uc ks, I nc ., 819 So. 2d 1258, 1261 ( M i s s . 2002). W hi l e the pr ocedur al pr ovi s i ons of the A ctbeca m e ef

f ect i ve f oral l cas es pendi ng on J ul y 1, 1993, the s ubs t ant i ve p ro v is io n s w e re n o t e ff

e c tiv e u n til J u ly 1 , 1 9 9 4
. Id
. T he A ctcr eat ed a " hodge p o dg e m i xtur e of the con sum er exp ect at i on s and r i sk ut i t l i ty t est s, " fo r a m anuf actur erors el l er t o pas s i n or dert o obt ai n pr ot ect i on i f the pr oduct c a u s e s h a rm . Id . a t 1 2 6 6 -6 7 (S m ith , P .J ., d is s e n tin g )
. M is s . C o d e A n n . § 11- 1- 63( a) ( i
- i i i ) pr ovi des t hati n or derf ora m anuf

actur eror s el l erof

a pr oduct t o be l i abl e, a cl ai m antm us tpr ove by the pr eponder ance of the evi dence that at th e ti m e the p rod u ct l eft th e c o n tr o l of th e m an u fac turer o r sell er: ( i ) 1. T he pr oductw as def ect i ve bec aus e i tde vi at ed i n a mat er i al w ay fr om the m anu facturer ' s speci fi cat i o n s o r f rom otherw i se i dent i cal uni t s m anuf actur ed t o the s ame m anuf actur i ng s peci f i cat i ons , or 2 . T h e p ro d u c t w a s d e fe c tiv e b e c a u se it faile d to c o n tain adequa t e w arni ngs ori ns truct i ons , or 3. T he pr oductw as des i gned i n a def ect i ve manner , or 4 . T h e p ro d u c t b re a c h e d a n e x p re ss w a rra n ty o r fa iled to conf or m t o otherexpr es s fa ctual re pr es ent at i ons upon w hi ch the cl ai m antj us t i f

i abl y r el i ed i n el ect i ng t o us e the pr oduct ; and (ii) T h e d e fe c tiv e c o n d iti o n re n d e re d th e p ro d u c t u n re a so n a b ly danger ous t o t he us erorcons um er ; and ( i i i ) T he def

ect i ve and unr eas onabl y danger ous condi t i on of the p ro d u c t p ro x im a tely c a u se d the d a m a g e s fo r w h ich re c o v e ry is so u g h t. ¶2 3. H ow ev e r , a c c or di ng t o G r e e n’ s a pp e l l a t e b r i e f , h e a pp e a l s t o t hi s C our tonl y t he q u e stio n o f w h e th e r th e trial c o u rt e rre d in fin d in g th a t G re e n d e lib e ra te ly a n d v o lu n tar ily

### 13

expos ed hi m s el f

t o the know n dangerbef or e he a cci dent al l y fe l l and i nj ur ed hi s hand. T her ef or e, G r een pr es ent s t he i s s ue of w hethert her e exi s t s a genui ne i s s ue of a m at er i al f

act that he assum ed the r i sk of hi s i njur i es. ¶24. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 1- 63( d) ( R ev. 2002) pr ecl udes l i abi l i t y for defect i ve d esi gn
w hen the p l ai nti ff

assum es the ri sk of hi s i njur i es. S ub -s ect i on (d) provides: I n any ac t i on al l egi ng thata pr oducti s def ect i ve pur s uantt o par agr aph ( a) of thi s s ect i on, the manuf

actur erors el l ers hal l notbe l i abl e i f t he cl ai m ant(i ) had know l edge of

a condi t i on of

the pr oductthatw as i ncons i s t entw i th hi s s af ety; (i i) appr eciated t

he dangerin the conditi on ; and (i ii ) de liber ate l y and volun taril

y ch ose to ex

po se him sel

f to the da n ger i n such a m annert o r egi s t er as s enton the cont i nuance of the dange r ous condi t i on. (E m p h asis ad d ed ). ¶2 5
. A ss u m p tio n o f th e risk a p p lies w h ere a pe rson fr ee ly an d vo lun tar ily c h o se to
e n c o u n te r a d a n g e ro u s c o n d itio n . E lias v. N ew L aure l

R adi o Stati on , 245 M i s s . 170, 179, 14 6 S o. 2 d 55 8, 5 61 (196 2). “A ssum pti on o f r i sk ari ses f rom a m ental st at e o f w i l l i ng ness,
ora ment al s t at e appr oachi ng cons ent . ” I d. T he C ou rtdefi ned the d octr i ne o f as sum ed ri sk as f oll ow s: On th e a p p l i c a b i l i ty o f

th e d o c tr i n e o f

a s s u me d r i s k , i n c u rr e d r i s k , e t c . , 6 5 C. J
. S. , N egl i gence , Sec. 174, p. 849 s t at es : "A ccor di ngl y, i thas been he l d t o be the rul e, gener al l y r ef

err ed t o as the doctri ne of as s um pt i on of

r i s k, and s om et i m es r ef

err ed t o as the doctr i ne of ' i ncur red ri s k' , or' t aki ng the r i s k or h a z a rd ' , o r ' ru n n in g th e risk ' , tha t o n e w h o v o lu n tar ily e x p o se d h im se lf o r h is pr operty t o a know n and appr eci at ed dange rdue t o the negl i gence of another m ay notr ecove rf

ori nj ur i es sust ai ned ther eby, even though he w as i n the e x e rc is e o f o rd in a ry c a re o r e v e n o f th e u tm o st c a re . C o ro llarie s o f th is ru le a re th a t to a c q u ies c e in , o r c o n se n t to , a c o u rse o f n e g lig e n t co n d u c t is to a ss u m e th e risk s in c id e n t th e re to , tha t o n e h a v in ga c h o ice o f re a so n a b ly c onv e nie nt

ways as s um e s the r is k o f a dange r ous one, and that one who

### 14

voluntar il

y attem pt s a r as h, im

pr udent , and danger ous under taking is to be p re su m e d

to h a v e a ss u m e d

th e ris kin c ide n ta l th e re to . "T h e d o c trin e , ac c o rd in g ly , ca n a p p ly o n ly w h e re a p e rso n m a y re a so n a b ly el ectw hetheror nothe shal l expose hi m s el f t o a part i cul ardanger ; and i thas no appl i cat i on w her e a c ont i nued expos ur e t o ri sk is d ue t o a l ack of re a so n a b le o p p o rtu n ity to e sc a p e a fte r th e d a n g e r is a p p re c iate d , o r is th e re su lt o f in flu e n c e , c irc u m sta n c e s, o r su rro u n d in g s w h ich a re a re a l in d u c e m e n t to cont i nue. T hus , i f

pl ai nt i f f s urr ender ed hi s bett erj udgm enton an as s ur ance of s af ety ora promi s e of

pr ot ect i on he di d notas s um e the r i s k unl es s the dange r w as s o obvi ous a nd s o e xtr eme thatther e coul d be no r eas onabl e r el i ance on th e a s s u ra n c e ." N o p ers on can assum e a ri sk t hat he do es not kno w exis t s. I d. at 17 8 -79 (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶26
. O ft en the qu est i on of w hether the plai nti ff app reci at ed and un derst oo d the ri sk i s a quest i on of

f actf orthe j ury, how ever , “ i n c ert ai n c i r cumst ance s the f act s may sho w as a
m att erof l aw thatthe pl ai nt i f

f under s t ood a nd appr eci at ed the dange r . ” He r od v. G r ant , 262 So. 2d 781, 783 ( M i s s . 1972)
. “H ow ever , i n the abs ence of evi dence thatthe i nj ur ed per s on k n e w o f th e d a n g e r , o rth a tth e d a n g e rwa s s o o b v i o u s th a th e mu s tb e t a k e n t o h a v e k n o wn of i t , i tcannotbe hel d thathe as s um ed the r i s k of i nj ury ther ef

r om . ” Id
. T he C our thel d: T he el ement s thatmustbe f ound i n or dert o c ons t i tut e a def ens e of as s um pt i on of r i s k ar e gene r al l y s t at ed i n s om e s uch t erm s as t he f ol l ow i ng: ( 1) [k ]no w led g e o n th e p a rt o f th e in ju re d p a rty o f a c o n d iti o n in c o n s iste n t w ith hi s s af ety; ( 2) appr eci at i on by the i nj ur ed party of the dangeri n the condi t i on; a n d (3 ) a d e lib e ra te a n d v o lu n tar y c h o ice o n th e p a rt o f th e in ju re d p a rty to expos e hi s per s on t o t hatdangeri n s uch a manneras t o r egi s t eras s enton the cont i nuance of

the dange r ous condi t i on. I d. at782.

### 15

¶27. In Clark , 8 66 So
. 2 d a t4 61
- 62 , thi s Courtf ound t hatt he t r i al cour t ’ s gr ant of
s um m ary j udgm entw as pr operbas ed on the depos i t i on t es t i m ony thatdemonstr at ed thatt he pl ai nt i f f , C l ark, w as aw ar e of

and appr eci at ed the dangerass oci at ed w i th pai ntbal l guns , and kn ew that pr otect i ve ey ew ear w as r eadil y av ai l able. C l ark’ s depo si t i on testi m on y als o sh o w e d th a t h e v o lu n tar ily c h o se to n o t w e a r p ro tec tiv e e y e w e a r w h e n p a rticip a tin g in
s hoot i ng pai ntbal l s . T hi s C our thel d: B as ed on the depos i t i ons of C l ark and R i co, w e f

i nd thatthe tr i al courtdi d not erri n gr ant i ng s um m ary j udgm entin favor of Bra s s E agl e. T he f act s do not s uppor tany otherconcl us i on. C lar k o ffe re d n o p ro o f th a t th e p a in tb a ll g u n u se d in th e in c id e n t fa iled to f unct i on as expec t ed and of f er ed no f

eas i bl e des i gn al t ernat i ve w hi ch, t o a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili ty , w o u ld h a v e p re v e n ted w h a t ha p p e n e d to h im . In fa c t, C lark' s testi m o n y is de tr im en tal to h is cl aim
. C lark test if ied th at he w as a w are thatther e w as pr ot ect i ve eye w earavai l abl e f orpur chas e atW al
- M art , buthe chos e nott o do s o. H e w as a n a ct i ve part i ci panti n s hoot i ng pa i ntbal l s a tother v e h icle s. T h e e v e n in g o f th e in c id e n t a t iss u e h e re C lar k a n d h is f rie n d s in h is carcarr i ed thei rpai ntbal l guns w i th them forthatpurpos e. C lar k tes tified th a t h is p a re n ts w e re a w a re th a t h e h a d p u rc h a se d a p a in tb a ll g u n a n d e n g a g ed in sh o o ti n g p aintb all s at o ther fri en d s' ca rs. C lark a p p re c iate d th a t th e re w a s a d a n g e r in sh o o tin g a t p e o p le e v id e n c e d b y h is s t at ementthati tw as "c om m on s ens e" no tt o s hootanyone i n the f ace w i th a pai ntbal l gun. C l ark s ai d thathe gues s ed i tw as "comm on sens e" t o nots hoot anyone i n t he eye
. N o one playi ng the " game" w or e pr ot ect i ve masks or ey ew ea r. R ico' s testi m o n y furthe r sup p o rt s the tri al co u rt ' s d ec isi o n to g ran t sum m ary j udgm entas t o B r as s E agl e. W hi l e R i co use d a f r i end' s pai ntbal l gun t o s hoot C l ark, R i co' s dad had boughta B r as s E agl e T al on pa i ntbal l gun f orhi m the day of the i nci dent
. R i co chos e nott o r ead any of the w arni ngs ori ns truct i ons on th e sid e o f th e g u n , in the m a n u a l or o n the p a c k a g e . R ico w a s fa m ili a r w ith the pai ntbal l gun, havi ng us ed otheri dent i cal pai ntbal l guns i n the pas t . R i co st at ed that"pa i ntbal l w ar s " w er e pl ayed by s ever al peopl e by r i di ng ar ound shoo t i ng paintball s ateach o thers parked or m ov i ng cars .

### 16

R ico tes tified th a t h e k n e w it w a s d a n g e ro u s to s h o o t so m e o n e in th e e y e w ith a p aintb all g u n . R ico a c k n o w ledg ed that h e k n ew p rotec ti v e m ask s w ere avai l abl e. R i co al s o di d notus e any pr otect i ve eyew ear . R i co s t at ed thathe knew the purpos e of

t he pr ot ect i ve m as k w as t o pr ot ectthe eye s and the f ace fr om paintball s. I d. ¶28. I n contr as tt o Clark, w her e the C our t f ound the gr ant of s um m ary j udgm ent i n f avor of the def endantt o be pr oper , the C our ti n P ar go v. E lect

r i c Furnace Co. , 498 So. 2d 833 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 ), co n clud ed the g ran t o f s u m m ary jud g m en t w as im p rop er b ec au se a jury q u e s tio n e x is te d a s w h e th e r t h e e m p lo y e e a s s u m e d th e ri s k
. P ar go , 498 So. 2d at835- 36. I n P ar go , unl i ke the ca s e s ub j udi ce a nd Clark , the pl ai nt i f f s t at ed i n hi s s w orn af

f i davi tt hat h e w a s u n a w a re o f th e d a n g e ro u s n a tu re o f th e sa lt b a th m a c h in e a n d th e p o ss ib le
c o n s e q u e n c e s o f h a v in g p h y s ic a l c o n ta c t w ith th e m a c h in e . Id at834. Fur ther, ot her
em ployees tes t i fi ed that the em ployer had co ntem plat ed i nst al l i ng p recaut i on ary m easures, b u t th e e m p lo y e r d e c id e d th a t s a fe ty d e v ic e s w e re n o t n e c e s s a ry . Id
. at834- 35. ¶29. T he C our the l d thatw er e genui ne i s s ues of mat er i al f

acta s t o the ext entof

the danger in v o lv e d , w h e th e r th e d a n g e r w a s a ttribu tab le to th e a lleg e d d e sig n d e fe c t o f th e sa lt
m a c h in e , a n d w h e th e r th e e m p lo y e e a s s u m e d th e ri s k o f h is in ju ri e s . Id . a t 8 3 5 -3 6
. See a l so D aves , 222 So. 2d at412- 14 ( T he pl ai nt i f f , f ol l ow i ng hi s e m pl oyer ’ s i ns truct i ons , dr ove the truck ac r os s the l evee i n w etcondi t i ons . W hen the truck bec ame stuck, the pl ai nt i f f f ace d the choi ce of

dum pi ng hi s gr avel l oad oratt empt t o turn ar ound w i th heavy l oad. T he truck turned overw hen the pl ai nt i f f a t t empt ed t o dump t he l oad i n or dert o l i ght en the truck. T he C o u rtfou n d that a jury q u esti o n ex ist ed w h ethe r th e p lai n ti ff assu m ed the risk.).

### 17

¶30. I n H

ar r is t v. Spencer-H

ar r is T ool Co. , 244 M i s s . 84, 89- 90, 140 So. 2d 558, 558- 59 ( 1962) , the Pl ai nt i f

f f el l f r om a l adderthathe a tt empt ed t o cl i m b and s ued the manuf actur er of an oi l dri l l i ng ri g fornegl i gence i n construct i ng a l adderw hi ch had the l ow errungs angl ed ata s l antbel ow and i ns i de the upperrungs . T he C our tappl i ed the o pen and obvi ous rul e,
s t at i ng: If w e a ss u m e th e re w e re d e fe c ts, w e th in k th e y w e re a p p a re n t an d o b v io u s to a c a s u a l o b s e rv e r . . . N o duty r es t s upon a manuf actur erors el l ert o w arn a pur chas erof a dange r ous des i gn w hi ch i s obvi ous . I f thi s w er e nottrue, a manuf acturercoul d not des i gn and s el l a pocke tkni f e, axe, pl anerorgun. I d. at562. ¶3 1. I n Hedg epeth v . Frueh auf Cor p. , 6 34 F. Su pp . 9 3, 9 8- 99 ( S. D
. M i s s . 1986) , t he pl ai nt i f f s ued hi s em pl oyer , C api t ol T r ans por tC om pany, and F ruehauf , t he manuf

actur erof the t ankertr ai l er f

rom w hic h t he pl ai nt i f

f s l i pped and f

el l
. A ppl yi ng M i s s i s s i ppi l aw , t he D i s tr i ctC our tf

orthe Southern D i s tr i ctof M i s s i s s i ppi , hel d: T he cour ti s E r i e- bound, how ever , i n the abs ence of any s i gn f

r om the M i s s i s s i p p i S u p r e me Co u r tth a tth i s d e f e n s e i s r e p u d i a t e d o rl i mi t e d i n s o me f as hi on, t o hol d thata manuf actur eri s unde rno duty t o w arn orado pt a ltern a tiv e d e sig n s w h e n th e d a n g e r a ss o c iate d w ith th e u se o f a p ro d u c t is o p e n a n d o b v io u s to th e u se r. P lain tiff' s te s tim o n y a t trial u n e q u iv o c a lly es t abl i shed t hatt he dange rof w al ki ng i n oi l
- s l i ck cow boy boot s on a t i l t ed, me t a l t a n k e rs u r f

a c e c o v e r e d wi th o i l wa s o p e n , o b v i o u s a n d a p p a r e n tt o h i m.

. . . . A ddi t i onal l y, and as an al t ernat i ve t o the court ' s con cl us i on thatj udgm ent s houl d be ent er ed i n f

avorof def

endanton gr ounds t hatt he dangerw as open and obvi ous t o S t eve H edgepe th, the courtconcl udes thatH edgepe th as s um ed the r i s k of

hi s i nj ury atthe t i m e he m ount ed the t ankert op. U nderM i s s i s s i ppi

### 18

l aw , the def

ens e i s appl i cabl e w hen def endantcan show t he exi s t ence of thr ee el ement s atthe t i m e of pl ai nt i f f ' s i njury: ( 1) know l edge on the partof the i nj ur ed party of

a condi t i on i ncons i s t entw i th hi s s af ety; ( 2) appr eci at i on by the injured p arty o f th e d an g er i n th e co n d it ion ; an d (3) a d eli b era te an d v o lun tary c h o ice o n h is p a rt to e x p o se h is p e rso n to th a t d a n g e r in su c h a m a n n e r a s to re g is te r a s s e n t to th e c o n tin u a n c e o f t h e d a n g e ro u s c o n d itio n . Macleod v. W r itte n [ McLeo d v. W

hitte n] , 413 So. 2d 1020, 1022 ( M i s s . 1982)
. W hether s uc h i nj ur e d pa r ty a s s umed a p a r t i c ul a rr i s k of h a rm i s mea s ur e d by a s ubj ect i ve s t andar d, w hatthe i nj ured pa r ty actual l y knew , r atherthan the "r easona bl e man" s t andar d. Ale xa nde rv. Conve

y ors & D um

pe rs, I nc . , 731 F
. 2 d 1 2 2 1 , 1 2 2 3 -24 (5th C ir
. 1 9 8 4 ); H e r od v. G r ant , 262 So. 2d 781, 782 (M iss. 1 9 7 2 ). ¶3 2. H er e, G r een a dmi t t e d i n hi s depos i t i on t es t i m ony t hathe had know l edge and
a p p re c iate d th e d a n g e ro u s c o n d iti o n o f th e m u le b o y . G re e n tes tified th a t th e c h a in s c o u ld be s een movi ng w hen the mul e boy w as runni ng. In f act , he s t at ed that“anybody c oul d s ee th e c h a in s m o v in g .” T h e m u le b o y o p e ra ted b y a p iec e o f m e tal ru n n in g b e tw e e n fo u r se ts
o f ch ains
. T h e tracto r ha d to b e turn ed o n for the ch ains to m o v e. G ree n test if ied th at th ere
w as nothi ng w r ong w i th t he m ul e boy. I n f act , he s t at ed thatthe mul e boy w as new . G r een t es t i f i ed thatw hen us i ng any pi ece of f arm equi pm ent , he us ed hi s comm on s ens e. G r een t e s t i f i e d tha th e was a w a r e tha tf a r m eq ui pmen t , e s pe c i a l l y a p i e c e o f e qu i pmentw i t h a
m o v ing p art, ca n b e d an g ero u s. G ree n test if ied th at he w as a w are that the c h ains w ere
m ovi ng and the tr act orw as runni ng w hen he w entt o l ook atthe mul e boy. ¶ 3 3
. G re e n tak e s iss u e w ith th e trial c o u rt’s fin d in g th a t h e v o lu n tar ily a n d d e lib e ra tely appr oache d the dange r ous condi t i on. N othi ng w as pr es ent ed t o the tr i al courtthati ndi cat ed thatG r een w as i ns truct ed orencour aged t o getnearthe mul e boy’ s movi ng chai ns . W hen G r een gotoff

t he t r act or , he di d notturn t he m ul e boy off bef or e appr oachi ng i t . G r een doe s

### 19

n o t al lege th at th e o n /off sw it ch w as d efe cti v e o r f ail ed t o o p era te. H e sim p ly fail ed to turn of f the machi ne bef

or e get t i ng neari t . G r een cl ear l y t es t i f i ed thatthe tr act orw as s t i l l on and the cha i ns w er e s t i l l m ovi ng w hen he appr oache d the mul e boy. G r een t es t i f i ed thathe w as nottryi ng t o r epai rthe mul e boy. ¶34. G r een conce ded that he w as aw ar e that the m achi ne w as danger ous . G r een t es t i f i ed i n his depo si t i on that he kn ew i f he go tt oo cl ose, he w ou l d b e pu l l ed int o the m ov i ng chains. Y et , he ignored the dan ger an d app roached the runn i ng m ule boy
. G reen t est i fi ed that he l ost hi s bal ance w hen he tr i ed t o s quatdow n; he t hen sl i pped. W hen he t r i ed t o keep f r om f al l i ng, he putou th i s h a nd t o c a t c h hi mse l f
. H i s h a nd was g r a bb e d by the mac hi ne , a nd h e w as i nj ur ed. ¶35. H er e, the r ecor d r evea l s f r om G r een’ s depos i t i on that he under s t ood and appr eci at ed the dange r . Fur ther , t he m ovi ng chai ns w er e open and obvi ous t o G r een. G r een pr ocee ded t o appr oach the m ul e boy w i thoutf i r s tturni ng of

f the machi ne, even though he appr eci at ed thati tw as a dange r ous s i tuat i on. T he tr i al c our tw as c orr ecti n gr ant i ng s um m ary j udgm ent i n f a v o ro f KB H. CO NC L US I ON ¶36. W e f

i nd thatthe tr i al courtd i d no terrin granti ng summ ary j udgm enti n f avor of A l l endal e Pl ant i ng C om pany and The K B H C orpor at i on. T her ef or e, the j udgm entof

t he C i r cui tC our tof

B ol i varC ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi , i s af f i r m ed i n t ot o. ¶ 3 7
. AF F I RM ED .

### 20

S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R, P . J . , CARL S ON AND DI CKI NS ON, J J . , CONCUR. RANDOL P H, J . , CONCURS I N PART. GRAVES , J . , CONCURS I N P ART AND DI S S ENTS I N P ART W I TH S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON J OI NE D B Y DI AZ AN D R AN DO L P H, J J . CO B B , P . J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . GR AVES, J UST I CE, CO NCU RRI NG I N PART AND DI S S ENTI NG I N PART: ¶3 8
. I co n cu r w ith the m ajority ’s f ind ing th at th e tri al co u rtd id n o t err i n g ran ti n g su m m ary jud g m en t i n fav o r of A ll en d ale P lanting C o m p an y . H o w ev er, I disag ree w ith the m ajority ’s f i n d i n g th a tth e tr i a l c o u r tdi d n o te rri n g r a n t i n g s u mma ry j u d g me n ti n f a v o ro f KBH Co rp o r a t i o n . Th e r e f

o r e , I r e s p e c t f

u l l y d i s s e n tt o th e ma

j o r i ty j u d g me n ta s i tr e l a t e s t o KBH C orpor at i on. ¶ 3 9
. T h e m a

jo rity e rro n e o u sly c o n c lu d e s tha t K B H e sta b lish e d a n a ffirm a tiv e d e fe n se to G re e n ’s d e fe c tiv e d e sig n c laim s. “A ss u m p tio n o f th e risk is [ m o st o fte n ] a jur y q u e stio n in al l butthe cl ear es tof

cas es . ” D aves v. R eed , 222 So. 2 d 41 1, 415 (M i s s . 1969) ( om i t t i ng ci t at i ons )
. N ever thele s s , the maj or i ty cont ends thatthe dange rof comi ng i n cl os e cont act
w i th the m ovi ng c hai ns w as s o obvi ous thatthe tr i al c our tcoul d concl ude as a mat t erof l aw th a t G re e n a ss u m e d th e risk o f h is in ju rie s, b y d e lib e ra tely a n d v o lu n tar ily e x p o sin g h im se lf to a k n o w n d a n g e r. G re e n a c c id e n tly fe ll an d in ju re d h is h a n d . H e d id n o t v o lu n tar ily expos e hi m s el f t o a k no w n danger
. A j ury ques t i on exi s t s as t o w hetherG r een’ s i nj ur i es
w ere the resul tof K B H ’s fai l ure t o inst al l a saf et y g uard t o co ver the m et eri ng chains. ¶40
. T he m aj ori ty corr ect l y assert s that G reen w as aw are of the dan ger of com i ng i n close
c o n tac t w ith th e m o v in g ch a in s a ttac h e d to th e m u le b o y . H o w e v e r, th e m a jo rity e rro n e o u sly concl udes thatG r een’ s f ai l ur e t o turn of

f the mul e boy bef

ore ap proac hi ng i tw as an

### 21

i ndi cat i on thathe vol un t ar i l y and del i ber at el y chos e t o expos e hi m s el f t o a dange r ous condi t i on. ¶ 4 1
. A lth o u g h G re e n p lac e d h im se lf i n clo se p ro x im ity to th e m o v in g c h a in s a ttac h e d to the mul e boy, he did no tdel i ber at el y and vol unt ar i l y choos e t o pl ace hi s hand i ns i de the
m ac h ine. G ree n ’s ha n d go t ca u g h t in th e m ac h ine w h en he acc iden tl y fel l. T h ere fore , a jury q u e s t i o n e x i s t s a s t o wh e th e rGr e e n ’ s i n j u r i e s we r e t h e r e s u l to f

th e a c t s o ro mi s s i o n s o f KBH
an d it s fail u re to install a safety g u ard t o co v er th e m etering ch ains
. T h e a ffi d av it s o f G ree n ’s expert , R obertT
. T ol bert , an d t he O SH A r egul at i ons r ai s e a f actques t i on as t o w hether G r een’ s i nj ur i es m ay have pot ent i al l y been pr event ed by att achi ng a s af ety guar d overt he
m o v in g c h a in s . See al

s o L enoirv. P or ter, 672 F. 2d 1240, 1245 ( 5 C i r . 1980) ( hol di ng a th j ury ques t i on exi s t ed as t o w hetherthe empl oyee’ s hand w oul d have got caughti n t he
m achi ne i f

the l i m i tbarhad bee n pr es ent )
. A ccor di ngl y, I w oul d r ever s e and r emand t he gr antof s um m ary j udgm enti n f avorof K B H back t o the tr i al courtf ora dec i s i on on t he
m eri t s. DI AZ AND RA NDOL P H, J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.