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 6 - CA- 0 1 9 4 5 - S CT RO S I E T HOM AS , I NDI VI DUA L L Y A ND ON BEH ALF O F TH

E W RO NG FU

L DE ATH B EN E F IC I A R I ESO F W I L S O N T H O M A S , J R ., DECEAS

ED
v. T H E C O L U M B IA GR O U

P , L L C ; TH E C O L U M B IA GR OU P, LLC d / b / a SHA DY

LAN E APAR TM

EN TS
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 23/ 2006 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. M I KE SM I TH COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: YAZOO COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: J AM ES ASHLEY OG DEN AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : W AL KE R R E E CE GI BS ON M I CHAEL W AYN E BAXTE R NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - W RO NG FUL D EATH D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 11/ 29/ 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: B E F O R E SM I T H , C . J. , G R A V E S A N D R A N D O L P H , JJ. S M I TH, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T his appea l ar i s es f r om a w r ong ful -death acti on i n w hich the P l ai nti ff t , R osi e T ho m as, in d iv id u a lly a n d o n b e h a lf o f th e w ro n g fu l- d e a th b e n e fi c ia ri e s o f W ils o n T h o m a s , J r., d e c e a s e d ( “ Th o ma s ” ) , a l l e g e s n e g l i g e n c e a g a i n s tDe f e n d a n t s , Th e Co l u mb i a Gr o u p , LL C, T h e C o lu m b ia G ro u p , L L C d /b /a S h a d y L a n e A p a rt m e n ts (“ S h a d y L a n e ” ). ¶2. O n Jul y 27, 2004, i n the C i r cui t C our t of Y azoo C ounty, T hom as f i l ed a compl ai nt al l egi ng negl i gen tsec ur i ty, f ai l ur e t o w arn, and f

ai l ur e t o m ai nt ai n the apa r t m entcompl ex

### JudgeLewi s wa s out on me dic alle aveat

thi s tim e. 1 

### 2 i n a r eas onabl y s af

e condi t i on. T he compl ai ntf ur theral l eged thatShady L ane’ s negl i gence caus ed the s hoot i ng a nd de ath of W i l s on T hom as , J r . , on A ugus t1, 2003. T he compl ai ntw as a m e n d e d M a rc h 2 1 , 2 0 0 5 , a n d th e a m e n d e d c o m p la in t w a s a n s w e re d M a y 5 , 2 0 0 5 . ¶ 3 . O n F e b ru a ry 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 , S h a d y L a n e fil e d a m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t. A rg u m e n ts o n the m o ti o n for sum m ary j u d g m en t w ere he ard on A p ri l 2 4 , 20 0 6 , be fore Jud g e Ja n n ie L ew i s . Fourd ays lat er , J udge Lew i s ent er ed an or derdenyi ng Shady L ane’ s m ot i on f or s um m ary j udgm ent . O n A ugus t3, 2006, c i t i ng a new l y publ i s hed ca s e, Shady L ane r enew ed i t s m ot i on f

orsumm ary j udgm ent . T he r enew ed m ot i on w as ar gued bef or e a s peci al j udge, J u d g e M ik e S m ith , w h o g ra n te d th e m o tio n fo r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. 1 ¶4 . T hom as t hen f

i l ed a mot i on f

orn e w tr i a l , amendm entof j udgm ent , j udgm ent
n o tw ith stan d ing the v erd ict , reli ef from jud g m en t, an d a s e p a rate m o ti o n to rec o n side r. J udge Sm i th ent er ed an or derdenyi ng T hom as ’ s m ot i ons on O ct ober16, 2006, and Thom as fi le d a n o tic e o f a p p e a l o n N o v e m b e r 7 , 2 0 0 6 . ¶5 . O n ap p ea l is the issue of w h ethe r th e tr ial co u rti m p rop e rly g ra n ted S h a d y L an e’s
m ot i on f ors um m ary j udgm ent . W e hol d thatthes e ar e i s s ues of m at er i al fa ct , t hus the tr i al
courterr ed i n gr ant i ng s um m ary j udgm ent . W e r ever s e and r emand. S TATEM ENT OF FACTS ¶ 6 . S h a d y L a n e is an ap a rtm e n t co m p lex in Y a z o o C ity c o n tr o lle d b y T h e C o lu m b ia G r oup and s ubs i di zed by the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof H ous i ng a nd U rban D evel opm ent (H U D ). W i l son T ho m as, Jr . , l i ved atS had y L ane A partm ents w i th h i s gi rl fr i end , T eres a

### 3

M it ch ell , for ap p rox im ately tw o y ea rs. T h o m as w as n o t l ist ed o n the lea se, bu t th e m an ag er, C ather i ne W as hi ngt on, k new o r had r eas on t o know thathe w as l i vi ng ther e, and di d not
s e e m to h a v e a n y p ro b le m w ith it. ¶7. Shady L ane i s l ocat ed i n a hi gh- cr i m e ar ea. Som et i m e i n the l at e 1980s Shady L ane hi r ed arm ed s ecur i ty guar ds t o patr ol the pr operty. I n the l at e 1990s Shady L ane i ns t al l ed an i r on f ence ar ound the ent i r e pr operty. T her e w as onl y one ent r ance t o the pr operty, and i tw as contr ol l ed by a gua r d s t at i oned i n a booth t o m oni t or w ho en t ered and e xi t ed the pr operty. A r ound 2000, the guar ds w er e r emoved and w i thi n a f ew m on t hs repl ace d by
s e c u ri ty c a m e ra s lo c a te d a ro u n d th e e n tir e p ro p e rt y . ¶8 . O n T hur s day, Jul y 24, 2003, W i l s on Thomas w a s s ho tby Cor ne l i us Y ou ng af t er tryi ng t o cal m an ar gum entbetw een Y oung and hi s gi r l f r i end. T he s hotm erel y gr aze d T hom as , buthe r equi r ed medi cal tr eatm entan d l at erthatday f i l ed a pol i ce r eport . T he apart m entm anage rw as i nf or m ed of the s hoot i ng, a nd he l d a meet i ng t o di s cus s w hatt o do ab o u t i t. T h e a p artm en t m an ag er sa id tha t she w as g o ing t o ge t sec u ri ty an d ke ep Y o u n g o ff th e p ro p e rt y . T h is w a s n o t e n fo rc e d . ¶9. O n A ugus t1, 2003, Y oung ent er ed the Shady Lane pr operty thr ough the f r ontgat e, parked his car, go tou tand shot and k i l l ed T ho m as. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶10. T hi s C our t empl oys a de novo s t andar d of r evi ew w hen r evi ew i ng or der s gr ant i ng or d e n y in g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. Mantachie N atural G as v. Mis s . V

al ley G as Co. , 594 So. 2d 1170 ( M i s s . 1 99 2) . The movi ng p a r ty mus ts ho w tha t“ the r e i s n o ge nu i ne i s s ue a s t o any m at eri al factand that the m ov i ng party is en t i t l ed t o a judgm ent as a m at t er of l aw . ” M i ss.

### 4

R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c). “Issu es o f fact su ffi cien t t o req u ir e d en ial o f a m o ti o n for su m m ary j udgm entobvi ous l y ar e pr es entw her e one pa r ty s w ear s t o one ver s i on of the m att eri n i s s ue a nd a no the rs a ys the o ppos i t e. ” T i tu s v. Wil

lia ms , 8 4 4 S o . 2 d 4 5 9 , 4 6 4 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 ). A ll evi dence , i ncl udi ng admi s s i ons i n pl eadi ngs , ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es , deposi t i ons and af f i davi t s m us tbe vi ew ed i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the party a gai ns tw hom the mot i on has been m ade, as “ he i s gi ven the bene f i tof every r eas onabl e doubt . ” S p a r ta n Fo o d

S y s ., I nc. v. A m er i can N

at ’l I ns. Co. , 5 8 2 S o . 2 d 3 9 9 , 4 0 2 (M is s . 1 9 9 1 ).

DI S CU S S I ON ¶1 1 . A t i ssu e is w h ethe r the tri al c o u rtp rop erly g ran ted S h ad y L an e’s m o ti o n for su m m ary j udgm ent . T he tr adi t i onal el ement s of negl i gence ar e dut y or s t andar d of c ar e, br eac h of t hat d u ty , p ro x im a te c a u s a tio n , a n d d a m a g e s o r i n ju ry . L yle v. Mladini ch , 584 So. 2d 397, 398 (M i ss. 19 91 ). T he an al ysi s of pr em i ses l i abil i ty involves three st eps: fir st, the cou rtm ust det erm i ne the s t atus of

the i nj ur ed party as i nvi t ee, l i cens ee, ortr es pas s er ; s econd, bas ed on the i nj ur ed’s s t atus , the courtm us tdet erm i ne w hatduty the l andow ner/bus i nes s oper at or ow ed the i njur ed party; and thir d, the co urtm ustd et erm i ne w hetherthe l and ow ner/bu si ness o p e ra to r b re a c h e d th e d u ty o w e d th e i n ju re d p a rt y . L itt

le ex re l. L itt

le v . B e ll , 719 So. 2d 75 7, 76 0 (M i ss. 19 98 ). In this case, dam ages cl earl y co nsi stof the d eat h o f W i l son T ho m as, butw e w i l l di s cus s eac h of the otherel ement s i n turn. I. S tat u s. ¶12. A per s on i s cons i der ed an i nvi t ee i f he ent er s the pr emi s es of another i n ans w er t o t he
e x p re s s o r im p lie d in v ita tio n o f th e o w n e r o r o c c u p a n t f o r th e irm u tu a l a d v a n ta g e . Hol liday
v. Pi zz a I nn, I nc. , 659 So. 2d 860, 865 ( M i s s . 1995). A per s on i s cons i der ed a l i cens ee i f he

### 5

ent er s the pr operty of

anotherf

orhi s ow n conveni ence , pl eas ur e orbenefi tpur s uantt o t he l i cense o r i m pl i ed perm i s s i on of the ow ner , and a pe r s on i s cons i der ed a tr es pas s eri f he
e n te rs th e p ro p e rt y o f a n o th e r w ith o u t lic e n s e , in v ita tio n o r o th e r r ig h t. I d. ¶1 3 . T h e P lai n ti ff co n ten d s th a t T h o m a s w a s a n in v it ee at th e ti m e o f th e sh o o ti n g . In Joinerv. H

aley , 777 So. 2d 50, 52 ( M i s s . 2000) , thi s C our ts t at ed that“i tw oul d appea rthat an i nvi t ed gues ton the pr emi s es of r ent al pr operty w oul d be a f f or ded the s ame pr ot ect i ons ext ended t o the t enant . ” Thi s C our tal s o has not ed thati n m ul t i
- uni tapart m entbui l di ng s, w h ere the o w n er e x p ressly o r i m p li ed ly rese rve s p arts for co m m o n u se, “[i ] t i s the land lord ’s d u ty to k e e p sa fe su c h p a rts o v e r w h ich h e re se rv e s c o n tro l, an d , if h e is n e g lig e n t in th is
re sp e c t, a n d p e rso n a l i n

ju ry re su lts to a ten a n t ort o a pers on ther e i n the ri ghtof the t enant , he i s l i abl e i n t or t . ” L u c a s v. Mis s . Ho u s . A u th . N o . 8 , 44 1 So . 2d 10 1, 10 3 ( M i s s . 19 83) ( quot i ng Turni

ps eed v. McG ee , 2 3 6 M iss . 1 5 9 , 1 0 9 S o . 2 d 5 5 1 (1 9 5 9 )). It is u n d isp u ted th a t, atthe very l eas t , T hom as w as an i nvi t ed gues tof t enantT her es a M i t chel l and ther ef or e w as a ff o rd e d th e s a m e p ro te c tio n s e x te n d e d to th e te n a n t. ¶14. Pl ai nt i f

f c ont ends thatThom as w as l i vi ng a tthe apar t m ents and t hat the m anage r knew he w as l i vi ng ther e. Shady L ane argues thatthe managerhad no know l edge that T hom as w as l i vi ng ther e, and thathe w as notl i st ed on t he l eas e and ther ef or e nota l egal t enant . Pl ai nt i f

f al s o not es thatShady L ane deri ved a bene f i tf r om T hom as l i vi ng on t he pr operty, an d as s uch meet s the “f or - thei r - m utual
- advant age” por t i on of the def i ni t i on of i nvi t ee. T ho m as m ade monet ary contr i but i ons i n the f or m of payi ng f

orl aundry att he apart m ent l aundr om atand payi ng M i t chel l ’ s m ai nt enanc e bi l l . T her e i s s ui t abl e evi dence th a t T h o m a s w a s a t S h a d y L a n e u n d e r th e im p lied in v itatio n o f th e o w n e r, an d fo r th e ir

### 6

m utual benef

i t . G i vi ng T hom as the bene f i tof every r eas onabl e dou bt f or t he purpos es of
s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, it s h o u ld b e c o n c lu d e d th a t h e w a s a n in v ite e . I I . D ut y. ¶15. H avi ng char act er i zed T hom as a s a n i nvi t ee, the duty ow ed i s s i m pl y an i s s ue of l aw al r eady e s t abl i s hed by thi s C our t . A l andow nerow es an i nvi t ee the duty t o ke ep the pr emi s es r eas onabl y s af

e, and w hen no trea s onabl y s af e, t o w arn onl y w her e ther e i s hi dden dange r o r p e ri l th a t is n o t in p la in a n d o p e n v ie w . Titus , 8 44 So . 2 d a t467. I n G atew ood v. Sam ps on , 812 So. 2d 212, 219- 220 ( M i s s . 2002) ( quot i ng L yle v. Mladini ch , 584 So. 2d 397 ( M i s s . 1991) ) , the C our ts t at ed that“[ t ] he dut y i m pos ed upon a bus i nes s pr opr i et ort o pr ot ect a patr on f

r om as s aul t s by otherpatr ons i s thatthe bus i nes s ow ner , though notan i ns ur erof t he i nvi t e e ’ s s a f

e ty, h a s a d uty t o e xe r c i s e r e a s on a bl e c a r e t o pr ot e c tthe i nv i t e e f r om rea so n ab ly fo rese ea b le i n jury at the h an d s of th e o ther p atron s. ” T h e C o u rtw en t on to clarify th a t th e a re a w h e re th e d u ty i s o w e d e x te n d s to th e p a rk in g a re a a ro u n d th e b u ild in g . Id . T hi s m eans thati n the curr ents i tuat i on f orthe purpos es of

s um m ary j udgm ent , Shady Lane
o w e d T h o m a s a d u ty to e x e rc ise re a so n a b le c a re to p ro tec t h im fro m rea so n a b ly fo re se e a b le i nj ury atthe hands of

Y oung. ¶ 1 6 . S h a d y L a n e a rg u e s th a t T h o m a s w a s o w e d n o d u ty b e c a u se h e w a s in a p o sitio n to obs erve and f

ul l y appr eci at e the per i l he w as i n. I n Titus the C ou rtup held a su m m ary ju d g m e n t, statin g th a t “it is a g e n e ra l ru le o f la w th a t th e d u ty to w a rn d isa p p e a rs e n tirely
w h e n it is s h o w n th a t t h e in ju re d p e rs o n d id , in f

a c t, o b s e rv e a n d f

u lly a p p re c ia te th e p e ri l.” Ti tus , 844 So. 2d at467. W her eas the s t at ementi n Titus c e rta in ly is tru e , the fa c ts o f th is
case ar e si gn i fi cantl y dif fer ent than th o se o f Ti tus . I n Titus , the vi ct i m i nt ervened i n an

### 7

ar gum entbetw een the shoot erand a t hi r d par ty atappr oxi m at el y 9: 00 p. m . i n a conve ni ence s to re p a rk in g lo t. Id

a t 4 6 2 . T h e c ro w d w a s p e a c e fu lly d is p e rs e d . Id . Som e f or ty m i nut es la te r, t h e v ic tim re tu rn e d to th e p a rk in g lo t a n d w a s s p o tte d b y th e s h o o te r. Id a t 4 6 3 . A t th is p o in t th e s h o o te r f

ir e d tw o s h o ts a t th e v ic tim , m is s e d , a n d th e v ic tim fl e d . Id . T w e n ty mi n u t e s l a t e rth e v i c t i m a g a in r eturned t o the parki ng l ot , butthi s t i m e the vi ct i m appr oached th e sh o o tera n d

a tta c ke d h im . Id . Th e s h o o t e rth e n r e tr i e v e d h i s g u n a n d k i l l e d th e v i c t i m. Id . at464. ¶17. I n Titus , the en ti re affair from fi rst co n fron tat ion to sh o o ti n g too k just o v er an h o u r. I d. at463- 64. I n thi s cas e, Y oung f i r s tf i r ed atT hom as on J ul y 2 5, 2 00 3, and the next i nt er act i on, the s econd s hoot i ng, di d notoccurunt i l a w eek l at eron A ugus t1, 2003. I n Ti tus , th e v ictim a p p ro a c h e d th e s h o o ter a n d a ttac k e d h im , a t w h ich tim e th e s h o o ter re triev e d h is g u n a n d k ille d th e v ic tim . Titus , 8 4 4 S o . 2 d a t 4 6 3 -6 4 . In th is c a se , T h o m a s w a s s im p ly
s i t t i ng i n the Shady Lane parki ng l otw hen Y oung pul l ed up, parked hi s car , gotoutand s hot T hom as . T hom as di d nots ay anythi ng t o Y oung. T hom as di d nothave a w eapon. T hom as d id n o th in g to in s tig a te th e s h o o tin g . ¶ 1 8 . T h e d istin c tio n is c lea r. In o n e situ a tio n , a v ictim w ill fu lly p lac e d h im se lf in p e ril. H e att acke d the s hooterev en t hough he knew thatthe s hoot erw as curr ent l y arm ed and
w i l l i ng t o us e the w eapon. H e as s um ed t he ri sk. In thi s cas e, T hom as tr i ed t o br eak up a fi g h t betw ee n Y o u n g an d Y o u n g ’s girl fri en d an d w as sh o t at by Y o u n g . A full w ee k lat er, T hom as had notgone af t erY oung, buti ns t ead w as si t t i ng w i th t w o fr i ends i n the parki ng l ot
w hen he w as appr oached by Young . It w a s a n u n p ro v o k e d a ttac k . S h a d y L a n e re p e a ted ly
r ef er s t o an ongoi ng f

eud betw een Thom as and Y oung. H ow ever , ther e i s no evi dence i n the

### 8

r ecor d t o s uppor tt hi s . G i vi ng T hom as the benef i tof e very r eas onabl e doubtf orthe purpos es o f su m m a ry ju d g m e n t, i t sh o u ld b e co n c lu d e d tha t S h a d y L a n e d id in fa c t o w e h im a d u ty to exer ci s e r eas onabl e ca r e t o pr ot ecthi m f r om r eas onabl y f

or es eea bl e i nj ury. I I I . B reac h of

D ut y/ P roxi m at e C ause . ¶19. Shady L ane a r gues thatthe s hoot i ng w as an i nterven i ng and s uper cedi ng caus e of T hom as ’ s death. H ow ever , thi s C our thas f ound thatf

oran “i nt erveni ng and s uper cedi ng caus e t o ext i ngui s h l i abi l i ty of the or i gi nal act or , the ca us e mustbe u n fo re se e a b le . ” N

e w e ll
v. S. Jitney Jungle Co. , 830 So. 2d 621, 623 ( M i s s . 2002) ( emphasi s a dded) . I n thi s c as e the
cause w as notunf

or es eea bl e. ¶2 0 . In o rde r to estab li sh leg a l ca u sati o n , o r fore see ab il ity , in ca ses o f assa u lt b y a third p e rs o n , o n e m u s t s h o w a c tu a l o r c o n s tru c tiv e k n o w le d g e o f th e a s s a ila n t’ s v io le n t n a tu re , or actual orcon struct i ve k no w l edg e t hat an at m osph ere of viol enc e ex ist s o n the prem i ses. G atew ood , 812 So. 2d at220. Evi dence of an exi s t i ng atm os pher e of vi ol ence m ay i ncl ude “the over al l patt ern of

cr i m i nal act i vi ty pr i ort o the eventi n ques t i on thatoccurr ed i n the gener al vi ci ni ty of

t he def endant ’ s bus i nes s pr emi s es , as w el l as the f r equenc y of

cr i m i nal act i vi ty on the pr emi s es . ” L yle v. Mladini ch , 584 So. 2d at399. ¶21 . T his case present s bo th. T he apart m ent m anag er at S had y L ane kn ew abo ut the fi rs t sh o o tin g a t lea st tw o d a y s a fte r it h a p p e n e d . E v e n if sh e d id n o t h e a r a b o u t th e sh o o tin g u n til tw o d a y s a fte r it h a p p e n e d , it w a s still se v e ra l d a y s b e fo re th e se c o n d sh o o tin g , res u lti n g in T hom as ’ s death, occurr ed. T her e i s even t es t i m ony thatthe ap art m entm anage r“knew
so m e th in g lik e th is w a s g o in g to h a p p e n ,” a n d th a t sh e w a s g o in g to d o s o m e th in g a b o u t it . A s t o the exi s t i ng atm os pher e of vi ol ence , ther e i s evi dence i n t he r ecor d of s ever al pr evi ous

### 9

s hoot i ngs on t he pr emi s es and l ot s of f i ght i ng. Speci f

i cal l y, t here w er e more than f i ve s hoot i ngs atShady L ane pr i ort o the i nci dentbetw een Th om as and Y oung, eac h of w hi ch
r es ul t ed i n death: M atthew W r i ghti n 1993; H arry Sm i th i n 1995; J ames Cl ark i n 1996; and tw o uni dent i f

i ed M exi can men i n 2002. A gai n, t es t i m ony s how s thatthe apa r t m entm anage r w as aw ar e of

thes e occ urr ence s . I n thi s s i tuat i on , the r e i s atl eas tenough evi dence of f or es eea bi l i ty t o es t abl i s h a ques t i on of m at er i al f

actf orthe j ury t o det erm i ne. ¶2 2 . S h ad y L an e also a rgu es, an d the tri al c o u rtrelied o n , the n o ti o n tha t T h o m as “ c an ’t p u t to g e th e r a se t o f fa c ts to p ro v e th a t th e d e fe n d a n ts d id a n y th in g to c a u se Y o u n g to k ill T hom as . ” Pl ai nt i f

f ar gues thati f

Shady L ane had mai nt ai ned s ecur i ty guar ds atthe gat e, and
m ai ntai ned the ban ned li st , Y ou ng w ou l d n ot have g ott en o n the property to shoot T ho m as. T hi s C our tha s hel d that“[ p] r oxi m at e ca us e ar i s es w hen the omi s s i on of a duty contr i but es t o caus e an i nj ury. ” Cr ain v. Cleve land L odge 1532, O r derof Moos e, I

nc. , 641 So. 2d 1186, 1192 ( M i s s . 1994) ( quot i ng D r um m ond v. B uckley , 627 So. 2d 264, 270 ( M i s s . 1993) ) . T he apart m entm anage rs t at ed thats he w as goi ng t o e vi ctY oung, a nd thats he w as goi ng t o get s ecur i ty a nd ba n Y oung f r om the pr emi s es . T hi s w as notdone . I n Cra in , t he C our tf ound th a t n o e v id e n c e w a s p re se n ted in the rec o rd sh o w in g a c a u sa l l in k b e tw e e n a la c k o f se c u rity
m e a s u re s a n d th e in

ju ry s u s ta in e d . Id . I n thi s cas e, how ever , ther e i s di r ectevi dence f r om e x p e rts T y ro n e L e w is a n d Jo h n T isd a le th a t S h a d y L a n e ’s f a ilu re to fo llo w th ro u g h w ith
s ecur i ty pr oxi m at el y caus ed the s econd s hoot i ng of W i l s on T ho m as . T hi s t es t i m ony f r om expert s , coupl ed w i th the manager ’ s s t at ementthats he w as goi ng t o ban and e vi ctY oung as w el l as i m pr ove s ecur i ty, i s cl ear l y an i s s ue of m at er i al f

actthats houl d be de t erm i ned by a j ury.

### 10 CO NC L US I ON ¶23. B as ed on t he f

or egoi ng anal ys i s , w e concl ude t hatt her e ar e i s s ues of m at er i al f

act , and thatthe tr i al courterr ed i n gr ant i ng s um m ary j udgm enta s a mat t erof l aw . A s s uch, the tr i al
c o u rt’s d e c isio n is re v e rse d a n d re m a n d e d fo r tria l. ¶ 2 4 . RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. W AL LER AN D D I AZ , P. J J . , EAS LEY, CA RL SON , DI CK I NSO N, RA ND O LPH AND L AM AR, J J . , CONCUR. GRAVE S , J . , CONCURS I N RE S UL T ONL Y.