360 So.3d 204
Miss.2023Background
- On July 14, 2016, Charlene Thomas fell when stepping from the final stair onto the lower pool deck at the IP Casino; she suffered severe orthopedic and spinal injuries.
- Surveillance video, depositions (Thomas, nephew Larry Kyle, and pool attendant Karla Payne), two prior incident reports (June 17 and June 23, 2016), and an expert affidavit (engineer John Laughlin) were part of the record.
- Payne testified the landing was a known ‘‘slippery’’ area that tended to hold water and that she had warned supervisors about it; Kyle and Payne each testified the landing was wet after the fall; Thomas said she was wet after falling but did not recall seeing puddles pre-fall.
- Boyd moved for summary judgment arguing Thomas offered no proof of breach or causation and that video did not show puddles; the trial court granted summary judgment and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court granted certiorari, reviewed the evidence de novo, and concluded genuine issues of material fact (wet/slippery condition, notice, causation) precluded summary judgment; it reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether genuine issues of material fact exist to preclude summary judgment on breach and causation in a slip‑and‑fall premises‑liability case | Thomas: depositions, surveillance (showing discolored/wet area), two prior incident reports, Payne’s testimony about a known slippery/puddle area, and expert analysis create triable issues on dangerous condition, notice, and that slipping — not a physiological event — caused the fall | Boyd: no proof it caused or knew of any hazardous condition; video undermines witness testimony (no visible puddles); pool deck wetness is ordinary and expected; prior reports lack sufficient similarity/details | Supreme Court: Reversed — when evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to Thomas, a reasonable jury could find a dangerous, puddling/slippery condition, that Boyd had notice (including prior incidents and Payne’s warnings), and that Boyd’s breach could have caused the fall; summary judgment was erroneous |
| Whether prior incident reports are sufficiently similar to show existence of a dangerous condition and notice | Thomas: two prior falls on same stairs shortly before her fall are substantially similar and may be used to show dangerous condition and Boyd’s notice | Boyd: reports lack detail and are not shown to have occurred in the same manner/location, so they are not probative | Supreme Court: Prior reports involved falls on the same stairs (one while holding the handrail) and are substantially similar enough to be considered by a jury for existence of a dangerous condition and notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. 2007) (Supreme Court standard for when video ‘‘blatantly contradicts’’ a party’s version of events at summary judgment)
- Duckworth v. Warren, 10 So. 3d 433 (Miss. 2009) (Mississippi adoption of Scott standard for videotape evidence at summary judgment)
- Vivians v. Baptist Healthplex, 234 So. 3d 304 (Miss. 2017) (prior slip‑and‑fall incidents on same stairs can show dangerous condition and notice)
- Munford, Inc. v. Fleming, 597 So. 2d 1282 (Miss. 1992) (standard for proprietor’s actual or constructive knowledge in slip‑and‑fall cases)
- Karpinsky v. Am. Nat’l Ins. Co., 109 So. 3d 84 (Miss. 2013) (summary judgment burdens and nonmoving‑party obligations)
- Miss. Valley Gas Co. v. Estate of Walker, 725 So. 2d 139 (Miss. 1998) (circumstantial evidence standard — must make plaintiff’s theory reasonably probable)
- Yoste v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 822 So. 2d 935 (Miss. 2002) (prior incidents may be used to infer dangerous condition and notice)