368 So.3d 363
Miss. Ct. App.2023Background
- Ainslie Babin slipped on a rubber mat in a non‑ventilated vestibule at Wendy’s, fell, and suffered a right ankle fracture requiring surgery. She was a business invitee.
- Wendy’s had placed small rubber mats in the vestibules; manager testified mats were bought from Lowe’s and there was no corporate requirement on mat type or anti‑migration measures.
- Family members and two Wendy’s employees testified the mat slipped or tended to migrate; photographs showed no wet‑floor signs and employees reportedly tested and replaced the mat after the fall.
- Wendy’s preserved a 2'x3' mat; plaintiff’s safety expert inspected it and opined it was a residential mat (irregularly buckled, torn, poor slip resistance) that failed ANSI/NFSI B101.6 guidance and created an unreasonably dangerous condition. Wendy’s offered a Lowe’s receipt and an unauthenticated website listing for a 3'x4' mat in support of its motion.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for Wendy’s, finding no dangerous condition or sufficient notice and deeming the ANSI standard unpersuasive. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding genuine issues of material fact existed and remanding for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the mat constituted a dangerous condition | Mat was a residential 2'x3' mat with defects and poor slip resistance that created an unreasonably dangerous condition | Mat was commercially reasonable/new (purchased week before) and not dangerous | Reversed — conflicting evidence (eyewitnesses, employee testimony, expert) creates a jury question |
| Whether Wendy’s had actual or constructive knowledge | Employees and manager tested mat after fall; mats known to migrate and vestibule retains moisture — Wendy’s should have known | No notice: manager inspected pre‑opening and mat did not slip; lack of evidence mat was dangerous long enough for constructive notice | Reversed — disputes over employee testimony and conditions create material factual issue on notice |
| Admissibility/weight of ANSI standard and expert testimony | ANSI/NFSI guidance is relevant to reasonable care; expert relied on inspection and standards; defendant offered no rebuttal expert | Court below discounted ANSI as voluntary and not dispositive; Wendy’s relied on unauthenticated website/receipt to show a different mat | Reversed — standards and unopposed expert testimony are admissible and go to weight for jury; court erred excluding relevance of standards and accepting unauthenticated website evidence |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment given conflicting testimony | Witness and employee testimony plus expert report create genuine disputes of material fact | Credibility favors Wendy’s; no dangerous condition established as matter of law | Reversed — credibility and factual conflicts must be resolved by a jury, not on summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. B. H. Acq. Inc., 771 So. 2d 914 (Miss. 2000) (constructive/actual notice framework for premises liability)
- Renner v. Retzer Res. Inc., 236 So. 3d 810 (Miss. 2017) (conflicting witness testimony precludes summary judgment on premises hazards)
- Keckley v. Estes Equip. Co., 276 So. 3d 1230 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (minor or hidden defects can be unreasonably dangerous if sudden and unexpected)
- Cox v. Wal‑Mart Stores E., L.P., 755 F.3d 231 (5th Cir. 2014) (defective threshold case illustrating that unexpected minor defects can create jury issues)
- Fairley Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Savage, 265 So. 3d 203 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) (use of industry standards as measure of reasonable care)