Imputed Knowledge Shields Premises Owners: Application of Mississippi Code §11-1-66 in Rose v. Nissan North America

Introduction

Rose v. Nissan North America, decided April 25, 2025 by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, addresses the scope of immunity afforded to premises owners under Mississippi Code § 11-1-66. Plaintiff Ryan C. Rose, an electrical technician employed by Automated Power, Inc., suffered a serious electric shock while repairing equipment at Nissan’s Canton, Mississippi manufacturing plant. He sued Nissan North America alleging negligence and failure to provide a safe workplace. Nissan moved for summary judgment, invoking § 11-1-66, which shields a property owner from liability for injuries to independent contractors (and their employees) when the contractor “knew or reasonably should have known” of the dangerous condition. The district court granted judgment for Nissan; on appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The court held that Automated Power was an independent contractor, not an employee or invitee of Nissan.
Under Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-66, Nissan was immune from liability because Automated Power—and by extension its employee Rose—knew or should have known of the risk that a tiebreaker cubicle could remain energized.
The panel rejected Rose’s argument that Nissan’s control over access to the cubicle nullified the independent contractor relationship.
Accordingly, summary judgment for Nissan was affirmed.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The court leaned on both Mississippi Supreme Court and intermediate appellate decisions to interpret § 11-1-66 and define “independent contractor”:

Heirs & Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Branning ex rel. Tucker v. Hinds Community Coll. Dist. (Miss. 1999): Established the ten-factor test for distinguishing employees from independent contractors, focusing on control over work details.
Jones v. James Reeves Contractors, Inc. (Miss. 1997): Clarified that business invitees’ own knowledge of danger is the relevant measure when no independent-contractor shield applies.
Tanner v. Roseburg Forest Prods. S., Ltd. P’ship (Miss. Ct. App. 2016): Emphasized the contractor’s knowledge must be imputed to its employee under § 11-1-66.
McSwain v. System Energy Resources, Inc. (Miss. Ct. App. 2012): Applied the ten-factor test and held that a premises owner did not retain such control as to void an independent contractor relationship.
Other decisions (White v. Targa Downstream, Peak v. Cohee) cited § 11-1-66 but did not address the control question directly.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Fifth Circuit’s reasoning unfolded in three parts:

Independent Contractor Status:
- Mississippi defines an independent contractor as one who is not subject to the hiring party’s right to control the physical details of work.
- Applying the Branning ten-factor test, Nissan did not direct how Automated Power’s technicians performed repairs or hire/train them; Automated Power set methods and procedures.
- Control over facility access alone does not negate independent contractor status.
Knowledge of Danger:
- Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-66 bars liability where the contractor “knew or reasonably should have known” of the dangerous condition.
- Automated Power’s own policies required voltage checks with “hot sticks.” Its president and other employees testified that the risk of an energized tiebreaker cubicle was well known.
- Rose admitted he failed to use a hot stick and that he would not have been injured had he done so.
Summary Judgment Standard:
- The court reviewed de novo, finding no genuine dispute of material fact on independence or knowledge.
- With both elements satisfied, Nissan was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

3. Impact on Future Cases

This decision reinforces several key points:

Premises owners in Mississippi will continue to enjoy broad immunity under § 11-1-66 when truly independent contractors (and their employees) encounter known hazards.
Control over site access or setting safety-zone demarcations will not by itself convert an independent contractor to an invitee or employee.
Contractors must strictly enforce internal safety protocols (e.g., voltage-testing) or risk losing statutory protection.
The ruling may steer injured workers to pursue claims against their employer or workers’ compensation carriers rather than premises owners.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Independent Contractor vs. Employee: A contractor sets its own methods and hires/trains its workers; an employee works under the employer’s detailed control.
Business Invitee: Someone invited onto property for the owner’s benefit; the owner owes a duty to warn of hidden dangers the invitee does not know.
Premises Liability Immunity (Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-66): Shields property owners from claims by independent contractors who knew (or should have known) of risks.
Summary Judgment: A final ruling without a trial when there is no real dispute over important facts, allowing a judge to decide the case as a matter of law.
Hot Stick: An insulated rod used to test for live electrical voltage before a technician touches equipment.

Conclusion

Rose v. Nissan North America clarifies that under Mississippi law, premises owners are immune from tort liability for injuries to independent contractors’ employees when the contractor had knowledge of the hazard. Control over site access does not override the independent contractor relationship. The decision underscores the importance of internal safety practices by engineering firms and confirms that injured contractors must look primarily to their own employer or workers’ compensation remedies rather than to property owners for relief.