Kenneth D. Saranthus v. Health Management Associates, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2009-CA-00878-COA
KENNETH D. SARANTHUS AND LAURA M.
SARANTHUS
APPELLANTS
v.
HEALTH MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC.
D/B/A CENTRAL MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL
CENTER
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
10/30/2008
HON. W. SWAN YERGER
HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
DON H. EVANS
STEPHEN P. KRUGER
JAN F. GADOW
CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN
FAVOR OF THE APPELLEE
AFFIRMED: 03/01/2011
BEFORE KING, C.J., GRIFFIS AND ISHEE, JJ.
GRIFFIS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Kenneth Saranthus filed suit against Health Management Associates, Inc. d/b/a
Central Mississippi Medical Center (“CMMC”). He alleged that CMMC was liable for his
injuries under the law of premises liability. The Hinds County Circuit Court granted
summary judgment in favor of CMMC, and Saranthus appealed. We find no error and
affirm.
FACTS
¶2.
CMMC contracted with Crothall Healthcare, Inc. (“Crothall”) to operate the laundry
facility on the CMMC campus. Crothall then subcontracted with Larry Butcher for Butcher
to maintain the laundry equipment, such as washing machines and dryers.
¶3.
The vibrations that occur during the spin cycle caused cracks to develop in one of the
washing machines. The cracks needed to be welded, so either Crothall or Butcher called
Mason and Overstreet Welding and Machine Works, Inc. (“Mason and Overstreet”). Mason
and Overstreet sent Saranthus, its employee, to the CMMC campus to weld the cracks.
¶4.
On March 6, 2001, under the direction and supervision of Butcher, Saranthus worked
on the washing machine. A heavy portion of the machine had to be lifted out of the way to
allow Saranthus access to a part that needed welding. To do this heavy lifting, a hoist was
used. The hoist ran along an overhead rail above the laundry equipment. At the direction
of Butcher, a Crothall employee moved the hoist into position and connected it to the
washing machine. The heavy portion was lifted, and Saranthus welded that entire day
without incident.
¶5.
The following day, Saranthus returned to the CMMC campus to finish the job. Early
that morning, shortly after he arrived, Butcher directed him to weld a plate onto a different
part of the washing machine. To gain access to that part of the machine, the hoist had to be
moved out of the way. At the direction of Butcher, Saranthus unhooked the hoist from the
washing machine and slid it along the rail out of the way. Unbeknownst to Saranthus, the
rail did not have a “stop” on the end of it to prevent the hoist from sliding off the rail. The
entire hoist, which weighed approximately one hundred pounds, ran off the end of the rail
2
and crashed down onto Saranthus’s right arm. Saranthus was injured as a result and has
subsequently had three surgeries on that arm.
¶6.
Saranthus filed suit against Crothall and CMMC. Saranthus’s wife, Laura Saranthus,
joined in the lawsuit as a plaintiff and asserted some derivative claims, such as loss of
consortium. Crothall moved for summary judgment, and the motion was denied. CMMC
then moved for summary judgment, and the motion was granted. The circuit court entered
final judgment as to CMMC, consistent with Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶7.
The standard of review of an order granting summary judgment is de novo. PPG
Architectural Finishes, Inc. v. Lowery, 909 So. 2d 47, 49 (¶8) (Miss. 2005) (citing Hurdle
v. Holloway, 848 So. 2d 183, 185 (¶4) (Miss. 2003)). It is well settled that “[a] summary
judgment motion is only properly granted when no genuine issue of material fact exists. . .
. The moving party has the burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of material fact
exists within the ‘pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits.’” Id. (quoting M.R.C.P. 56(c)).
ANALYSIS
¶8.
Saranthus argues that CMMC, as the owner of the premises, breached its duties to
keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition or to warn him of a hidden danger, of which
CMMC either knew or should have known. Specifically, Saranthus claims that the rail
should have had a stop on the end of it, which would have prevented the accident, or CMMC
should have warned him that the rail did not have a stop.
¶9.
The circuit court found that summary judgment was warranted because the parties did
3
not dispute the fact that Crothall, CMMC’s independent contractor, knew that the rail was
missing a stop. The circuit court determined that if an independent contractor knows of the
danger, then the premises owner’s duty to remove the danger or to warn of the danger are
extinguished with respect to that independent contractor and its employees and
subcontractors.
¶10.
The general rule is that a premises owner “owes a duty to an independent contractor
and the latter's employees to furnish a reasonably safe place to work or give warning of
danger.” Miss. Chem. Corp. v. Rogers, 368 So. 2d 220, 222 (Miss. 1979). However, the
“owner is not liable for death or injury of an independent contractor or one of his employees
resulting from dangers which the contractor, as an expert, has known.” Id. (quoting Jackson
Ready-Mix Concrete v. Sexton, 235 So. 2d 267, 271 (Miss. 1970)). Once the contractor is
aware of the danger, “[t]he ensuing duty to warn or otherwise protect those individuals on
the property as employees and agents of the contractor rests solely with the contractor. This
shift in the duty to warn and protect from the owner to the contractor includes any such duties
owed to the contractor's subcontractors and employees of those subcontractors.” Bevis v.
Linkous Const. Co., Inc., 856 So. 2d 535, 539 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003).
¶11.
In Rogers, Mississippi Chemical owned a building that needed repairs. Rogers, 368
So. 2d at 221. It contracted with Baggett Industrial Constructors for the repairs. Id. The
work required Baggett’s employees to walk on the building’s roof. Id. The roof was made
of a weak material and was unsafe for walking, so walkways were provided. Id. Baggett’s
managers and supervisors were aware of the dangers of walking on the roof without using
the walkways. Id. Rogers, an employee of Baggett, walked on the roof without using the
4
walkways, fell through the roof, and injured himself. Id. He sued Mississippi Chemical and
alleged that it had breached its duty to provide him a safe workplace or to warn him of the
danger. Id. The jury returned a verdict in his favor, but the Mississippi Supreme Court
reversed the judgment. Id. at 221-22. The supreme court held:
We also recognize the rule that knowledge of danger by an independent
contractor relieves the owner from the duty of warning the independent
contractor or his employees. In Jackson Ready-Mix Concrete v. Sexton, 235
So. 2d 267, 271 ([Miss. ]1970), we said:
Closely related to this exception is the rule that the owner is not
liable for death or injury of an independent contractor or one of
his employees resulting from dangers which the contractor, as
an expert, has known, . . .
Moreover, it should be remembered that liability rests, not upon the ground of
danger, but upon the ground of negligence. . . .
In sum, Rogers charged Mississippi Chemical with negligence in failing to
provide him with a reasonably safe place to work and failure to warn him of
the fact that the roof on which he was working would not support the weight
of a person walking across it. Assuming that Mississippi Chemical did not
furnish Rogers with a reasonably safe place to work, it did not have the duty
to notify Rogers of the danger of walking on transite because his employer, an
independent contractor, had knowledge of the danger of walking on transite,
and the supervisory personnel of the independent contractor were instructed
to warn its employees not to walk on the roof except on the walkways.
Mississippi Chemical had no control over Rogers or the other employees of its
independent contractor, and [it] was entitled to the peremptory instruction
which it requested.
Id. at 222. Thus, the court concluded that Mississippi Chemical owed no duty to its
contractor or its contractor’s employees to provide a reasonably safe place to work or to warn
of the danger because the contractor was aware of the danger. Id.
¶12.
Here, Rogers controls the outcome. CMMC contracted with Crothall for Crothall to
operate the laundry facility. Crothall determined that a washing machine needed to be
5
welded. Crothall hired Mason and Overstreet, Saranthus’s employer. Saranthus had no
relationship to CMMC, except through Crothall. It was undisputed that Crothall knew the
rail was missing a stop.
A Crothall employee testified in an affidavit, submitted by
Saranthus, that Crothall was well aware that the rail was missing a stop. The employee
testified that the hoist had fallen off the rail numerous times and that nearly everyone who
worked for Crothall knew about it, including supervisors and managers. In fact, Saranthus
has vigorously and consistently argued throughout this litigation that Crothall knew about
the missing stop.
¶13.
Under Rogers, since Crothall, an independent contractor, knew of the danger then
CMMC, the premises owner, was relieved of any duty to Crothall, Crothall’s employees, and
Crothall’s subcontractors to remove the danger or to warn of the danger. The circuit court’s
grant of summary judgment in favor of CMMC was proper.
¶14.
Because this finding is dispositive of the appeal, we decline to address any other
issues raised by Saranthus.
¶15. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS
AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE
APPELLANTS.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS
AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR. CARLTON, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
6
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.