Opinion ID: 1862473
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: substantive issues of the case

Text: Bystander Recovery: The trial judge found that this was a case of bystander recovery, and as a matter of law in this state, O'Cain could not recover. The trial judge is correct in his conclusion that O'Cain could not recover under the prevailing standard of liability for bystander recovery. However, the trial judge is incorrect in his conclusion that this is a bystander case. In Entex, Inc. v. McGuire , Mr. McGuire witnessed an explosion in which his wife was engulfed in flames. Entex, Inc. v. McGuire, 414 So.2d 437, 439 (Miss. 1982). This Court set out the criteria which one must meet on a claim of emotional trauma by a bystander: (1) Whether the plaintiff was located near the scene of the accident as contrasted with one who was a distance away from it; (2) Whether the shock resulted from a direct emotional impact upon plaintiff from the sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident, as contrasted with learning of the accident from others after the occurrence; (3) Whether the plaintiff and the victim were closely related, as contrasted with an absence of any relationship or the presence of only a distant relationship. Entex, 414 So.2d at 444. See Thomas v. Global Boat Builders & Repairmen, 482 So.2d 1112, 1117 (Miss. 1986). In the case at bar, O'Cain fails the Entex test on item two. O'Cain did not actually witness the rape itself, although she was aware that her roommate was being assaulted in the adjacent room. O'Cain recognizes that her claim fails as one for a bystander and argues that she is not presenting a bystander claim. Rather, she alleges that as a result of the invasion of her apartment and rape, she has suffered extensive mental, psychological and emotional injuries. She makes no claim based on the actual witnessing of the event. In essence, her emotional problems stem from the fact that her apartment and roommate were violated. Extending to O'Cain the benefit of a reasonable doubt, we can proceed on the notion that her claim is for something other than bystander recovery. Intervening, Superseding Criminal Act: The trial judge also found that the criminal act of Larry Williams was a superseding criminal act which cut off liability from the alleged original wrongdoer, Harvey Freeman & Sons. The trial court opinion stated that criminal acts are, by definition, superseding causes. Unfortunately, this approach by the trial court is a little too simple. As a general rule of thumb, criminal acts can be intervening causes which break the causal connection with the defendant's negligent act, if the criminal act is not within the realm of reasonable foreseeability. Touche Ross v. Commercial Union Ins., 514 So.2d 315, 324 (Miss. 1987); Robinson v. Howard Brothers of Jackson, Miss., 372 So.2d 1074, 1076 (Miss. 1979). In applying reasonable foreseeability to the facts at bar, O'Cain argues that criminal activity is always within the realm of reasonable foreseeability for a lessor of apartment residential property. Whether something is or is not within the realm of reasonable foreseeability depends upon the facts of the case and the duty which the plaintiff asserts for the particular defendant. [A]n independent intervening cause is one that could not have been reasonably foreseen by the defendant while exercising due care. Kelly v. Retzer & Retzer, Inc., 417 So.2d 556, 562 (Miss. 1982); Oliver Bus Lines v. Skaggs, 174 Miss. 201, 210, 164 So. 9, 12 (1935). In the case at bar, the question of reasonable foreseeability of criminal activity would be for the trier of fact. Furthermore, the question of superseding intervening cause is so inextricably tied to causation, it is difficult to imagine a circumstance where such issue would not be one for the trier of fact. See Gibson v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., 386 So.2d 520, 522 (Miss. 1980) (whether intervening cause is foreseeable is for trier of fact). In summary, blanket application of the general rule that intervening criminal acts extinguish the defendant's liability is inappropriate for this case. Finally, in the case at bar, O'Cain stated that she had no idea that the lock on her patio door was insufficient. Therefore, it goes without saying that O'Cain had never notified the landlord about the questionable lock on the patio door. The door would lock, but as it turned out, the lock was poorly secured. This condition should be treated as a latent defect in the premises. There are special rules which pertain to latent defects. A landlord is liable for latent defects which he knows about and conceals or being aware of the defect, he fails to inform the tenant. Loflin v. Thornton, 394 So.2d 905, 906 (Miss. 1981). On this point, the locksmith's testimony is particularly significant. Although he could not remember whom he informed or when, the locksmith stated that he had informed at least two managers at the Chateau Tourraine that Charlie bars were needed to augment the existing security. Ergo, we find a dispute of a material fact regarding the landlord's notice or not of a latent defect on the premises. Admittedly, the locksmith's testimony on the question of the landlord's notice is somewhat confusing. Therefore, based on the record that we have at this time, summary judgment was premature without further development on this issue. This is a straight negligence action, and O'Cain must prove the traditional elements of her claim. Duty-Breach-Causation-Damages. As usual, we intimate no opinion whatsoever on the merits of the plaintiff's claim or her ability to meet the requisites of a negligence action. We merely find error in the procedural and substantive grounds upon which the trial court relied in granting judgment along with an undeveloped issue pertaining to the landlord's notice or not of a latent defect. Accordingly, we reverse the order of summary judgment entered in this case by the Jackson County Circuit Court on June 7, 1988, and remand the same for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED. PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, and BANKS, JJ., concur. SULLIVAN, J., concurs by separate written opinion, joined by ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., PRATHER, ROBERTSON, and BANKS, JJ. PITTMAN, J., dissents by separate written opinion, joined by HAWKINS, P.J. McRAE, J., not participating.