187 So. 3d 1100
Miss. Ct. App.2016Background
- On Dec. 5, 2009, Barbara Jones (invitee) tripped and fell in Wal‑Mart’s Gulfport parking lot and sued Wal‑Mart and two employees for negligence.
- Jones testified she was looking ahead and did not see the defect; her fiancé Bush observed her fall, took photos, and gave an affidavit locating the fall.
- Wal‑Mart’s manager completed an incident report; Wal‑Mart employees patched the crack after the incident. No employee testified to prior awareness of the crack.
- Wal‑Mart moved for summary judgment arguing Jones could not prove (1) the crack caused her fall, (2) Wal‑Mart had notice, and (3) the crack was not a dangerous condition.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the defect was not a dangerous condition as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jones proved the crack caused her fall | Jones relies on her statement, Bush’s affidavit, incident report, photos, and video still to locate the fall at the crack | Wal‑Mart says Jones cannot personally identify the cause and the evidence is insufficient to prove causation | Court assumed disputed location but resolved case on other grounds; causation not reached as dispositive issue was different |
| Whether Wal‑Mart had actual or constructive notice of the crack | Jones argues the crack was in a high‑traffic area in front of the store, supporting notice inference | Wal‑Mart points to no evidence of prior awareness and routine reporting system with no assigned lot inspector | Court did not decide this issue; resolution unnecessary because of dispositive holding on dangerousness |
| Whether the crack constituted a "dangerous condition" under premises‑liability law | Jones contends the defect was a large crevasse (allegedly ~4" deep, 4" wide, 12" long) and thus hazardous | Wal‑Mart argues that minor unevenness, seams, or potholes in walkways are normally encountered and not dangerous as a matter of law | Court held the crack was not a dangerous condition as a matter of law; such cracks are commonly encountered and not inherently hazardous |
| Whether spoliation presumption applies because Wal‑Mart filled the crack after the incident | Jones invokes spoliation because Wal‑Mart repaired the crack, arguing it hindered proof | Wal‑Mart notes Bush photographed the crack before repair and argues it had no duty to leave the defect indefinitely | Court rejected spoliation claim—photos existed and Wal‑Mart was not required to leave the hazard for years |
Key Cases Cited
- Jerry Lee's Grocery Inc. v. Thompson, 528 So. 2d 293 (Miss. 1988) (business owners owe invitees duty to keep premises reasonably safe and must warn of non‑apparent dangerous conditions known or that should be known)
- Mayfield v. The Hairbender, 903 So. 2d 733 (Miss. 2005) (open-and-obvious dangers do not automatically bar negligence claims relating to failure to repair; comparative negligence applies)
- Knight v. Picayune Tire Servs. Inc., 78 So. 3d 356 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (seams and minor unevenness in asphalt parking lots are not dangerous conditions as a matter of law)
- Penton v. Boss Hoggs Catfish Cabin LLC, 42 So. 3d 1208 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (slight height differentials in walkways do not constitute dangerous conditions)
- Bond v. City of Long Beach, 908 So. 2d 879 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (property owners are not required to maintain perfectly level walkways; minor variations do not impose liability)
- Wood v. RIH Acquisitions MS II LLC, 556 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 2009) (features not usually expected by invitees may be dangerous; distinguishable from normally encountered defects)