It is not surprising that the Landowner Protection Act was passed. However, it is somewhat surprising that the bill did not make it through the legislative maze to reach the governor’s desk in time. The bill seemed to be moving quickly earlier in the session. The bill’s proponents were determined to stop any attempts to slow down the bill’s progress, which could have unintended consequences. Both the Senate and House leadership ignored these concerns at first. The bill’s progress was slowed down when it was discovered that Butler Snow, one the largest law firms in the state, might be exempted from liability in the case against Lamar Adams of Madison. Adams is accused of orchestrating a timber scam that cost investors up to $100 million. Baker Donelson and Butler Snow, both of Jackson’s law firms, were connected to Adams and his timber company. They are being sued in connection with the Adams case. Adams pleaded guilty to fraud in federal court last year and was sentenced for 19 years. Adams was accused of creating a company to help people invest in timber purchases that would then be resold at a profit of 13 percent. Adams was accused of using funds from older investors to buy timber, but not actually buying it. The bill was discussed in the House Judiciary A Committee by Percy Watson (D-Hattiesburg) and Ed Blackmon (D-Canton). They argued that the bill provided businesses protection against lawsuits if third parties took actions that were harmful to their customers. The bill provided protection for businesses from lawsuits brought by property owners who were harmed by a criminal act. Watson and Blackmon said that the bill provided more protection than that, including protection for law firms that may have been aware that someone associated with them was taking actions that could harm investors or others. House Judiciary A Chair Mark Baker (R-Brandon), who is running to be attorney general, dismissed the concerns of Blackmon and Watson, and closed down the debate in the committee. Alysson mills, the court-appointed receiver for the timber case, which has alleged Adams should also bear responsibility, posted on a website she feared that the bill to protect property owners against the actions of third party could shield Butler Snow and Baker Donelson. She wrote that the bill did not address landowners’ liability. Mills’ comments were noticed by many because it was known that Butler Snow worked on legislation regarding premise liability. Baker proposed an amendment to the bill that did not address the Adams case after Mills made his comments. Although he maintained that it did not at the time, Baker said that he offered the amendment to clear up any doubts. According to Mississippi Today, the law company stated that Butler Snow’s claim of trying to influence the legislation in order to improve its legal position in the receiver’s lawsuit was false. Butler Snow, on behalf of our clients, has helped to draft and support legislation that affects landowners’ rights in premises liability tort lawsuits, both this session and earlier years. The current bill was not drafted by Butler Snow. Sen. Josh Harkins (R-Flowood), the primary author of this legislation stated that he had previously filed similar legislation and that it was never intended to do anything other than to protect landowners against third party actions. He said, “To claim that this bill foreshadowed Butler Snow’s involvement in or non-involvement with a Ponzi scheme was preposterous.” The bill’s opponents argued that there might be unintended consequences. The legislation’s proponents claim that the intention was to establish precedents in premise liability cases, and to allow juries to consider the possibility of apportioning the responsibility between the landowner and the person who committed the action. Opponents argue that the bill goes further, making it almost impossible to file and win cases even if the business took no security measures. This security could include adequate lighting or the hiring of security officers. Rep. David Baria (D-Bay St. Louis) said he was able to sue a Jackson motel for the murder of a professional fisherman. Baria claimed that he proved the motel’s inability to provide adequate security after it ignored warnings. Baria stated that he would not be able to win the lawsuit if the Landowners Protection Act becomes a law. Baria said that he could not win that lawsuit if the Landowners Protection Act becomes law. However, the bill’s supporters claim that businesses will still have an incentive to create a safe environment.