Opinion ID: 1602788
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: David and Donna May appeal to this Court from an adverse summary judgment on their claim against one of two defendants. The court below properly granted summary judgment. We affirm on the merits without hesitation. On November 2, 1984, David May and his wife Donna filed a complaint in the Harrison County Circuit Court against Ricky Triplett (Triplett) and VFW Post # 2539 (VFW). They alleged that they were business invitees attending a VFW-sponsored dance on September 1, 1984, when without warning or provocation, Triplett attacked David resulting in severe injuries to David. They further alleged that at the time of this incident, Triplett was an employee of the VFW, acting within the course and scope of his employment. Therefore, according to the Mays, VFW was negligent in the following respects: A. failing to exercise reasonable care for the safety of patrons on its premises; B. failing to provide adequate security for the protection of its patrons; C. failing to prevent ... Triplett from attacking [May] when ... VFW knew, or in exercise of reasonable care, should have known, of the violent propensities of Triplett; and D. failing to provide adequate supervision of its security personnel. In their separate answers, VFW denied all allegations while Triplett denied some and admitted others. Affirmatively Triplett asserted that David was the culprit who attacked him without provocation or warning. In the following weeks the VFW propounded a set of interrogatories. After David May submitted his answers, VFW filed, on April 24, 1985, a Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively for Summary Judgment. Attached to this Motion was the affidavit of Clifford Horn, the Post Commander for the VFW. Horn asserted that Triplett was employed as a janitor during this time period. On the night in question, however, he was not on duty and had no responsibility whatsoever to the VFW ... other than that expected of the general public. Moreover, the dance held on that night was not organized, promoted, or encouraged in any way by the VFW ... but rather, the main hall area was donated to the organizers of the `benefit' for the stated purpose of underwriting certain medical expenses of a family member of the host and member of the community. The VFW received no revenue from the event other than incidental sales for drinks and ice to those attending the benefit according to Horn. Horn also denied that Triplett was a security guard. The trial court denied VFW's motion for Summary Judgment on July 10, 1985, and discovery continued. After completion of discovery, VFW filed its renewed motion for summary judgment on March 28, 1988; a hearing was held on this motion on April 4, 1989; and on June 7, 1989, the trial judge submitted his findings of fact and granted the summary judgment motion. An amended final order was entered on June 26, 1989, and, thereupon, the Mays filed their notice of appeal to this Court.