Opinion ID: 1795898
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Invitee status

Text: ¶ 8. Vaughn attempts to classify this case as a master/servant matter, rather than a premises liability case involving an invitee. Citing Cherry v. Hawkins, 243 Miss. 392, 137 So.2d 815 (1962), for the proposition that a master has the duty to provide his or her servant a reasonably safe workplace, Vaughn concludes that a master will be liable for the failure to exercise due, ordinary, reasonable care. In this, we agree. However, we fail to discern any difference in the master's duty, and that of an owner or occupier of a premises to an invitee (as will be discussed infra). Accordingly, we find no merit to this assignment of error. ¶ 9. It appears that Vaughn urges us to decide this case under master/servant law, because she fears if she is classified as an invitee, she will not be allowed to recover damages caused by open and obvious dangers. [1] Vaughn is incorrect, and she is not alone.