Opinion ID: 1744152
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether the circuit court erred by granting treasure bay corporation a directed verdict with respect to the issue of common carrier liability.

Text: ¶ 13. Anderson asserts that the circuit court erred in granting Treasure Bay Corporation's motion for a directed verdict. Specifically, she contends that a passenger/carrier relationship was established when she formed the intent to board the Treasure Bay shuttle. Anderson also asserts that Treasure Bay was negligent in selecting the location for boarding and for failing to warn her of the oily condition on the pavement. Treasure Bay, however, argues that the passenger/carrier relationship had not yet been created and that the circuit court properly granted its motion for directed verdict. ¶ 14. In granting Treasure Bay's motion for a directed verdict, the circuit judge reasoned as follows: there was legal principle or precedent for the fact that a carrier, by its actions, created a hazardous condition by not stopping at a designated place, or where they stopped, if they created a hazardous condition, then they could be held liable. And that was one of the reasons that I did not grant summary judgment to begin with. In this particular instance, there is no evidence that they created any hazard. If there was a hazard in existence, it was not seen by their driver. They didn't create it by placing any oil, or whatever it was, on the pavement under the portico. As I view the evidence that has been offered here thus far, thatthe sign that was posted for a shuttle stop was outside of the canopy and was totally would be totally exposed to the elements. The evidence is, by everybody, that is was inclement weather conditions at the time. And to say that the Treasure Bay driver created a greater hazard by driving under the canopy so that passengers would not be exposed to the elements outside when they would have had to walk through the same area to get to the outside is a little far-fetched to me. I don't see how that created any hazardous condition for loading or unloading. Ms. Tiblier, in my view, pretty well stated it succinctly, that she looked, she did not see anything outside the door. Had she seen something that was a hazardous condition, she would not have remained there. There was nothing wrong There's been no showing there was anything wrong with the tram itself; that None of the parties had reached the tram. I think it goes without saying that they intended to board the tram, but that intention started from well within the hotel itself. Would it be said that Treasure Bay would be liable if they had tripped going out of the door on the doorjamb? No, I certainly can't see that. So without the creation of some hazard by Treasure Bay or there being some defect in the tram itself in a loading process or an unloading process, I do not see how they can be held legally liable. (emphasis added). Although the circuit judge made no specific ruling on the existence of a passenger/carrier relationship, we adopt his reasoning and find that no such relationship existed. Additionally, we find that the circuit court properly granted Treasure Bay's motion for a directed verdict. ¶ 15. A carrier of passengers for hire, is required to exercise the highest degree of care and diligence for the safety of its passengers. Goodwin v. Gulf Transp. Co., 453 So.2d 1035, 1036 (Miss. 1984). [The carrier] may be held liable for personal injuries only where those have been caused by the carrier's failure to exercise the highest degree of care. Id. Furthermore, the relation of carrier and passenger is dependant upon the existence of a contract of carriage, express or implied, between carrier and passenger, made by themselves or their respective agents; and this relation begins when a person puts himself in the care of the carrier or directly within its control with the bona fide intention of becoming a passenger and is accepted as such by the carrier. Gulf, M. & N.R. Co. v. Bradley, 167 Miss. 603, 142 So. 493, 494 (1932). ¶ 16. In Mississippi City Lines, Inc. v. Bullock, 194 Miss. 630, 13 So.2d 34 (1943), a twelve-year-old boy was a passenger on a city bus. The bus stopped with its front end on the gravel in order to provide the boy with a safe place to stand until the bus moved away. As the boy alighted, he did not remain until the bus could move away but he proceeded at once, inevitably on the run along the gravel shoulder on the west side of the bus and around its rear and not the pavement and into the path of the woman aforementioned and was hit by the woman's car resulting in injuries to him from which he died the next day. Bullock, 13 So.2d at 36. The boy's family sued both the woman and the bus company and recovered. The bus company appealed. We reversed, holding: (a) the injury is the remote and not the proximate consequence of the negligent or unlawful position in which the bus was stopped; (b) the bus driver was under no duty to warn of the danger of approaching vehicles; and (c) when the passenger has alighted at a sound place off and away from the traveled portion of the highway and where the passenger could safely stand and remain, the relation of carrier and passenger is thereby at an end. Id. at 38. Thus, we found that the passenger/carrier relationship ended when the boy left the bus and that the bus did not create the dangerous condition which was the proximate cause of the boy's death. Although Bullock deals with the passenger/carrier relationship ending, it is analogous to the present case in which we must determine when, if ever, the passenger/carrier relationship began. ¶ 17. Thus, the question becomes whether Anderson (1) placed herself within the care or control of the shuttle; (2) with the intent to become a passenger; and (3) was accepted by the shuttle. See Bradley, 142 So. at 494. We find, in this particular set of circumstances, that Anderson had not yet placed herself in the care or control of the shuttle. As the trial judge stated, Anderson obviously had an intent to board the shuttle, although the shuttle driver testified that she did not know for certain that Anderson's intent was to board her shuttle at the time she fell. Anderson was not on Treasure Bay's premises when she fell but rather was on B.H. Acquisition's premises. Moreover, Anderson was not physically attempting to board the Treasure Bay shuttle when she slipped and fell on the driveway. ¶ 18. Anderson further argues that Treasure Bay was negligent in its selection of the place for boarding and for failing to warn her of the dangerous condition. First, Anderson asserts that Treasure Bay was negligent in not stopping at its assigned location, which was marked by a sign located outside of the canopy. At trial, however, Scott Gray, a representative from B.H. Acquisition, testified that the Treasure Bay shuttle was allowed to pull up under the canopy, outside the canopy, or any place a passenger directed them to park. His testimony was corroborated by Julie Tiblier, the shuttle driver, who said that neither B.H. Acquisition nor Treasure Bay had ever given her any guidance as to where she should park and that she always picked passengers up at various locations on the premises. As the trial judge stated, it was inclement whether conditions at the time and to say that the Treasure Bay driver created a greater hazard by driving under the canopy so that passengers would not be exposed to the elements outside when they would have had to walk through the same area to get outside is a little bit far fetched to me. The shuttle driver pulled underneath the canopy to keep the passengers from boarding and walking in the rain. Clearly, such a decision was not negligent. Moreover, the assigned spot is also directly across from the hotel door and Anderson, in all likelihood, would have still taken the same path to the shuttle if it had been parked in its assigned spot. See diagram below: Hotel Entrance/Exit Anderson fell here Shuttle parked here (underneath canopy) Assigned Spot (not underneath canopy) Second, Anderson argues that Treasure Bay was negligent by not warning her of the dangerous condition. The shuttle driver testified that she did not recall seeing any oil or grease on the pavement on the day of the accident. Furthermore, she testified that she would not have stopped in that location if she had seen a dangerous condition. ¶ 19. We find that no passenger/carrier relationship had been established under this particular set of circumstances. Anderson, at the time of her fall, had not placed herself within the care or control of the carrier. Likewise, we find that Treasure Bay was not negligent in failing to warn Anderson of a dangerous condition or for parking underneath cover during inclement weather. Therefore, we find that the circuit court correctly granted Treasure Bay Corporation's motion for directed verdict.