Opinion ID: 183133
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Duty and Breach

Text: Under Mississippi law, every person who undertakes an action has a duty of reasonable care to protect against causing injury to others. Foradori, 523 F.3d at 486; see also Lloyd G. Oliphant & Sons Paint Co. v. Logan, 12 So. 3d 614, 618 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (finding that a subcontractor had a duty to all employees at the job site to furnish and maintain temporary lighting in an interior stairwell). Thus, Drury owed that duty to West. If a defendant’s conduct is reasonable in light of the “foreseeable risks,” there is no negligence and no liability. Donald v. AMOCO Prod. Co., 735 So. 2d 161, 175 (Miss. 1999) (stating that a defendant is obligated solely to safeguard against reasonable probabilities and is not charged with foreseeing all occurrences, even though such occurrences are within the range of possibility); Rein v. Benchmark Constr. Co., 865 So. 2d 1134, 1143 (Miss. 2004) (“[T]he important component of the existence of the duty is that the injury is ‘reasonably foreseeable . . . .’” (quoting Lyle v. Mladinich, 584 So. 2d 397, 399 (Miss. 1991))). A harm is the “foreseeable consequence of an act or omission if harm of a general sort to persons of a general class might have been anticipated by a reasonably thoughtful person, as a probable result of the act or omission, considering the interplay of natural forces and likely human intervention.” Signal Int’l LLC v. Miss. Dep’t of Transp., 579 F.3d 478, 492 (5th Cir. 2009); Rhaly v. Waste Mgmt. of Miss., 43 So. 3d 509, 514 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (noting that the plaintiffs did not have to show that the defendant was actually aware of the danger presented by its action, but rather whether the defendant should have reasonably foreseen that a dumpster placed on the banks of a ditch could be carried into the ditch by rising water, obstruct the ditch, and cause or intensify flooding of nearby properties). 6 Case: 10-60098 Document: 00511356486 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/20/2011 No. 10-60098 To prove breach of a duty, West had to show that Drury did not act in a reasonable manner under the circumstances. Davis v. Christian Bhd. Homes of Jackson, Miss., Inc., 957 So. 2d 390, 404 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (stating that a defendant breaches a duty owed to the plaintiff if the defendant “fails to act as would a reasonable person under the same or similar circumstances . . . .” (citing Baker, Donelson, Bearman & Caldwell, P.C. v. Muirhead, 920 So. 2d 440, 449 (Miss. 2006))). “Foreseeability and breach of duty are . . . issues to be decided by the finder of fact once sufficient evidence is presented in a negligence case.” Rein, 865 So. 2d at 1144. The mere fact of an accident and injury does not create a presumption or constitute evidence of negligence. CFC Fabrication, Inc. v. Dunn Constr. Co., Inc., 917 F.2d 1385, 1389 (5th Cir. 1990) (quoting Milner Enters., Inc. v. Jacobs, 207 So. 2d 85, 89 (Miss. 1968)). After review, we conclude that there is sufficient evidence to establish that Drury breached its duty to safely load the styrofoam roofing materials by using only a material strap. West did not have to present testimony as to industry standards, custom, or regulations to establish breach of a general duty of care. See Salem v. U.S. Lines Co., 370 U.S. 31, 37 n.6 (1962) (finding that expert testimony about customary equipment on a ship was not essential to establish that it was negligent to fail to provide some type of safety device); cf. Bostic v. Henkels & McCoy, Inc., 748 A.2d 421, 426 (D.C. 2000) (rejecting contention that the plaintiff needed to provide evidence of regulations or practices and procedures in the construction industry to allow the jury to evaluate the contractor’s activities, as the jury “need only find that the conduct of the party falls short of any standard that they would agree on as reasonable.” (citation omitted)). Further, although Drury argues that West failed to show breach because West did not present evidence to rebut testimony that Drury used material handling straps for years without incident, the jury could still have found Drury negligent. Mississippi courts have rejected the argument that there 7 Case: 10-60098 Document: 00511356486 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/20/2011 No. 10-60098 is no negligence simply because an injury rarely occurs or has never occurred. Rein, 865 So. 2d at 1145. Here, witnesses testified that the roofing materials could be enclosed with mesh wrapping. Other testimony established that a platform with guardrails could stop the load from tipping if the wind picked up and that mesh could hold the bundles. Another witness testified that, in his experience as an electrician on similar job sites, he had seen roofers lifting similar materials using mesh wrap around the bundles to keep materials from flying off as they were lifted. This witness had also seen a platform or some type of flat surface used on other job sites. Finally, the jury heard testimony that even if the material strap was properly secured around the load, the materials could fall out. From this testimony, we believe the jury could utilize its common experience to find that Drury breached its duty to safely secure and lift the roofing materials by using a material handling strap, rather than an alternative method, to secure the bundles. See Salem, 370 U.S. at 36 (finding that the jury had “sufficient evidence, both from oral testimony and from photographs, . . . to determine whether some railing or hand hold . . . was reasonably necessary for the protection of a seaman . . . .”); cf. Parra v. Bldg. Erection Servs., 982 S.W.2d 278, 285-86 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998) (finding that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant on a negligence claim because whether an unsecured wire rope cable posed a danger was a subject within the experience or knowledge of the jurors, rendering expert testimony unnecessary).