297 So.3d 292
Miss. Ct. App.2020Background
- On Dec. 24, 2014, Clair Hearn slipped and fell inside a Piggly Wiggly grocery store; she alleged she fell in a ~3-foot puddle of water and injured her foot.
- Hearn and her son testified they did not see the puddle until after the fall but observed footprints and shopping-cart tracks in it; neither could say how the puddle formed or how long it had been there.
- Store owner David Reed testified employees performed "floor sweeps" on an "as-needed" basis, training was verbal, no written sweep logs existed, and he did not know when the floor was last checked before the fall.
- Piggly Wiggly submitted surveillance video; the video did not clearly show the puddle or footprints and showed numerous people (many with carts) passing through the area before the fall.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Piggly Wiggly; the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding Hearn failed to show (1) a negligent act caused the fall, (2) the puddle existed long enough for constructive notice, (3) reasonable inspections would have revealed it, or (4) that the store's operating policy created a jury issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligent act (causation) | Hearn: store or its employees negligently caused the puddle/fall. | Piggly Wiggly: no evidence any employee caused the puddle; only conjecture. | No evidence of a negligent act by the store; claim fails. |
| Constructive knowledge (time hazard existed) | Hearn: footprints/cart tracks in puddle show it existed long enough to impute notice. | Piggly Wiggly: no admissible proof of how long puddle existed; tracks only show existence, not duration. | Plaintiff failed to show length of time; surveillance did not corroborate; constructive notice not proved. |
| Reasonable inspections | Hearn: reasonable floor inspections would have discovered the puddle. | Piggly Wiggly: no proof inspections would have revealed a spill that could have been created minutes earlier. | No evidence the hazard existed long enough that reasonable inspections would have discovered it; claim fails. |
| Internal policy / mode-of-operation | Hearn: as-needed sweeps and no written policy are unreasonable and create liability. | Piggly Wiggly: mode-of-operation theory not adopted; store followed verbal procedures; no proof of breach. | Court declines to adopt mode-of-operation theory; policy alone did not create a jury issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rod v. Home Depot USA Inc., 931 So. 2d 692 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (identifies the alternative proofs plaintiff must show in slip-and-fall cases)
- Haggard v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 75 So. 3d 1120 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (plaintiff must produce admissible evidence of time hazard existed to prove constructive knowledge)
- Ducksworth v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 832 So. 2d 1260 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (photographic evidence of spill condition can create a jury question on duration)
- Elston v. Circus Circus Miss. Inc., 908 So. 2d 771 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (evidence of routine inspection/watering schedule supported inference spill existed long enough for constructive notice)
- Jones v. Imperial Palace of Miss. LLC, 147 So. 3d 318 (Miss. 2014) (owner's duty includes reasonable inspections; mere existence of a defect is not enough)
- Waller v. Dixieland Food Stores Inc., 492 So. 2d 283 (Miss. 1986) (proof of sufficient passage of time is required to impute notice to proprietor)
- Robinson v. Martin Food Stores Inc., 231 So. 3d 1060 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (summary judgment standard and plaintiff's burden to set forth specific facts opposing the motion)