Opinion ID: 1748339
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: law i., ii., and iii.

Text: The issues in this case will be discussed together: (1) the lower court erred in refusing to hold the Village Inn liable because of the unreasonably dangerous condition of the stairway; (2) the appellee had a duty to use ordinary care in keeping the premises in a reasonably safe condition and; (3) summary judgment was not appropriate due to the existence of genuine issues of material fact. The rule has long been recognized in this state that an owner or occupier of land owes his business invitees the duty to exercise reasonable care to keep the premises safe or warn the invitee of the dangerous premises, if the condition is not readily apparent to the invitee. Biloxi Regional Medical Center v. David, 555 So.2d 53, 56 (Miss. 1989); Lucas v. Buddy Jones Ford Lincoln Mercury, Inc., 518 So.2d 646, 648 (Miss. 1988); Stanley v. Morgan & Lindsey, Inc., 203 So.2d 473, 475 (Miss. 1967) and a multitude of other cases state the principle. Also it is well recognized that the owner or occupant is not the insurer of the premises. Jerry Lee's Grocery, Inc. v. Thompson, 528 So.2d 293, 295 (Miss. 1988) (citing Kroger, Inc. v. Ware, 512 So.2d 1281 (Miss. 1987); First National Bank of Vicksburg v. Cutrer, 214 So.2d 465 (Miss. 1968); Daniels v. Morgan & Lindsey, Inc., 198 So.2d 579 (Miss. 1967). However, the facts in the case at bar are different from the cases stating the afore-mentioned rules. Likewise, the facts in this case more strongly support a cause of action than those in Goodwin v. Derryberry Co., 553 So.2d 40 (Miss. 1989), where this Court found that liability was a question for the jury. In the case at bar, Mrs. Johnson was a juror in a murder case when the jury was sequestered for the night. The jurors were invitees and houseguests of the Inn. Snow fell during the night and jurors, being housed on the second floor of the Inn, had only one route for descending to the ground floor  by the uncovered, exposed stairs. The snow had covered the stairs and handrails, and water was running from the roof of the Inn, dripping onto the stairs and into the snow. The appellee knew his guests were housed on the second floor; he knew that they had to descend to the ground floor; and he knew, or should have known, that it had snowed and that water was running off the roof onto the stairs, either partially melting or partially freezing under the snow. The appellee had the duty to use reasonable care to provide a safe place and facility for his guests to descend from the second floor. In Picard v. Waggoner, 204 Miss. 366, 37 So.2d 567 (Miss. 1948), this Court addressed the duty of an innkeeper to provide safe ingress and egress for his guests. The Court stated: It is, of course, the duty of the keeper of a lodging house where guests are received for hire to use reasonable care to provide the guest with reasonably safe means of ingress and egress, and when sufficient and suitable means have been designated and supplied for this purpose, the keeper is not under duty to any guest to maintain the entire premises in a safe condition but only such other parts as by invitation or customary use to the knowledge of the keeper the guest would be reasonably expected to go. 43 C.J.S., Innkeepers, § 22, page 1180, 28 Am.Jur. p. 579, and cases cited. Id. at 567. We are of the opinion that the lower court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the appellee and dismissing the complaint. Therefore, the judgment of the lower court is reversed and the cause is remanded for a full evidentiary trial on the merits. REVERSED AND REMANDED. HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, PITTMAN, BANKS and McRAE, JJ., concur.