Opinion ID: 1593912
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Allendale.

Text: ¶ 10. Green contends that the trial court should not have granted Allendale's motion for summary judgment. Green argues on appeal that there are genuine issues of material fact that should be resolved by the jury. Contrary to Green's assertions, Allendale argues that the trial court properly dismissed Green's claims as a matter of law. Allendale further contends that Green's negligence was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Allendale also asserts that Green would not have sustained any injuries if he had stopped the machine and then attempted to investigate its malfunction. By failing to do so, Green voluntary subjected himself to an open and obvious danger. ¶ 11. We find that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Allendale because as a matter of law, Allendale did not breach its duty to provide Green with a reasonably safe work environment, fail to warn or instruct him of the dangers associated with the mule boy, or provide him with a reasonably safe work tool.
¶ 12. Green argues on appeal that Allendale breached its duty to provide him with a reasonably safe work environment by failing to properly maintain and repair the mule boy. This Court has previously held that an employer owes its employees the nondelegable duty to provide its employees with a safe place to work. Monroe County Elec. Power Ass'n v. Pace, 461 So.2d 739, 748 (1984). Green offers no evidence to support his claim that Allendale failed to provide him with a reasonably safe work environment. In fact, his sworn deposition testimony defeats his claim against Allendale. During his deposition, Green admitted that the mule boy was only approximately three to four weeks old. Green also acknowledged that he inspected and performed the general maintenance of lubricating the metering chains attached to the mule boy every day. Green also admits in his appellate brief that between the date of purchase and the accident, Allendale did not make any modifications to the mule boy. ¶ 13. To avoid summary judgment, the non-movant must set forth specific facts that demonstrate a genuine issue of a material fact that merits trial instead of mere unsubstantiated allegations. Richmond v. Benchmark Constr. Corp., 692 So.2d 60, 61 (Miss.1997). Although Green was injured while working on his employer's premises, Allendale did not breach its duty to provide him with a reasonably safe work environment. Green's injuries were the result of his hand getting caught in the moving chains attached to the mule boy. The facts clearly indicate that Allendale was merely an employer who purchased a mule boy. There is no evidence within the record to indicate that Allendale performed any acts or omissions that created an unsafe work-place for Green. Therefore, Allendale is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this issue. The trial court's grant of summary judgment was appropriate.
¶ 14. Green also argues that Allendale failed to warn, train, or instruct him as to the dangers associated with operating the mule boy in the non-dumping position and those dangers disclosed in the manufacturer's manual. It is [the] duty of [the] master to warn and instruct his servants as to defects or dangers of which he knows, or in exercise of reasonable care and diligence should know, and of which the servant has no knowledge, actual or constructive. Cole v. Tullos, 228 Miss. 815, 90 So.2d 32, 36 (1956). A master has no duty to warn of obvious dangers that are apparent and customary in the performance of work. Long v. Woollard, 249 Miss. 722, 163 So.2d 698, 707 (1964) (citing Long Beach v. Spooner, 224 Miss. 246, 79 So.2d 833, 836 (1955)). A warning of an open and obvious danger would provide no new information to the plaintiff . . . If it's [the thing warned of] already known to the plaintiff, then the warning serves no purpose. Vaughn v. Ambrosino, 883 So.2d 1167, 1171 (Miss.2004). ¶ 15. In Vaughn, this Court held that in failure to warn cases, the open and obvious defense is still a complete bar to recovery. Id. See Mayfield v. Hairbender, 903 So.2d 733, 735-36 (Miss.2005) (holding that the grant of summary judgment was appropriate because the alleged hazard was open and obvious and known to the plaintiff, prior to her injuries). In Vaughn, the defendant's former housekeeper brought suit, claiming that the defendant's dog ran into a ladder that the plaintiff was using, causing the plaintiff to fall and sustain serious injuries. Vaughn, 883 So.2d at 1168. This Court concluded that although the plaintiff attempted to classify her case as a master/servant matter, rather than a premise liability case involving an invitee, . . . [there is no] difference in the master's duty, and that of an owner or occupier of a premises to an invitee. Id. at 1170. We further held that the comparative negligence standard applied to the open and obvious defense only when there was a claim of a dangerous condition and not when there was a claim for failure to warn of a dangerous condition. Id. at 1170. ¶ 16. The Court reasoned: Stated differently, a warning of an open and obvious danger would provide no new information to the plaintiff. Stated still another way, a thing warned of is either already known to the plaintiff, or it's not. If it's already known to the plaintiff, then the warning serves no purpose. If it is not already known to the plaintiff, then the thing warned of was not open and obvious in the first instance. Vaughn, 883 So.2d at 1170-71. ¶ 17. Similarly, in an older case, Poplarville Lumber Co. v. Kirkland, 149 Miss. 116, 115 So. 191, 192 (1928), this Court held that it was error for the trial court to submit the question of the employer's liability in not warning the employee to the jury because the warning was unnecessary. The employee in Kirkland was injured while performing his duties of removing the ends of a lumber cut saw. [2] Id. at 191. This Court concluded that the evidence demonstrated that the employee did not need a warning to understand the dangers of his duties. Id. at 192. He knew and appreciated the danger of coming into contact with the cut saw while removing the ends of the timber. Id. Even if the employer had instructed the employee of the danger, it would not have made a difference, because the employee already knew of the danger. Id. See also Yazoo & M.V.R. Co. v. Downs, 109 Miss. 140, 67 So. 962, 963 (1915). ¶ 18. In Downs, the Court held that a railroad employee, whose duties consisted of pulling out spikes holding the old rails together, which was preparatory to placing new rails on the track, was not entitled to a warning because his duties were obviously dangerous to an average workman. Downs, 109 Miss. 140, 67 So. at 963. The Court stated, [f]rom the facts in evidence we believe that [the] appellant could have rightfully assumed that [the] appellee possessed such experience and judgment ordinarily found in workmen of his grade, and that he was reasonably skilled in the work he was undertaking. Id. ¶ 19. Applying the standard articulated by this Court on numerous occasions in Vaughn, Mayfield, Kirkland, and Downs, Green needed no warning to understand the danger of coming into close proximity with the moving chains attached to the mule boy. Green was an experienced farm hand and testified that he thoroughly understood the dangers associated with operating and repairing farm equipment. He operated the mule boy daily and performed the required maintenance to the machine. Thus, it is highly likely that Green had more knowledge about the mule boy than his employer. ¶ 20. Alternatively, even if Allendale failed to train or instruct Green on how to properly operate and repair the mule boy or failed to warn him of the danger associated with the mule boy by not providing him with a copy of the owner's manual, there is no causal connection between those alleged claims and Green's injuries. The proximate cause of Green's injuries was his hand getting caught in the moving chains attached to the mule boy when he accidentally lost his balance and fell. No amount of warning, instruction, or training from Allendale would have prevented Green's injuries. Accordingly, Allendale is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Green's failure to warn claim. The trial court's grant of summary judgment was appropriate.
¶ 21. Lastly, Green contends that Allendale provided him with a mule boy that had a defective design because it lacked a safety guard to cover the moving chains attached to the mule boy. The Mississippi Products Liability Act (M.P.L.A.) does not provide a cause of action for defective design against an employer who merely purchased a product. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-63 (Rev.2002). The statute only governs whether liability should be imposed on entities engaged in the actual production or the sale of goods. Id. See also Harrison v. B.F. Goodrich, Co., 881 So.2d 288, 291 (Miss.Ct.App.2004). Accordingly, Allendale is also entitled to judgment as a matter of law as it relates to this claim. The trial court's grant of summary judgment was appropriate.