Kenyatta Donta Cheeks v. AutoZone, Inc.

¶ 29. I believe that the trial court correctly granted AutoZone’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

¶ 30. As the trial court correctly recognized, AutoZone owed no duty to its invitees to surround its store with an impregnable protective barrier. See Carpenter v. Stop-N-Go Markets of Georgia) Inc., 512 So.2d 708, 709 (Miss.1987); Heard v. Intervest Corp., 856 So.2d 359, 362 (Miss.Ct. App.2003). Rather, AutoZone owed a duty to its invitees to keep its premises reasonably safe, and when not reasonably safe, to warn them of any hidden…