122 So. 3d 140
Miss. Ct. App.2013Background
- Cotton sued Fred’s Dollar Store Inc., Fred’s Stores of Tennessee Inc., XYZ Corporation, and John Doe in Hinds County Circuit Court for injuries from a Jan 2006 slip-and-fall at a Fred’s store in Clinton, Mississippi.
- Fred’s moved for summary judgment on Feb 16, 2010; the circuit court granted it on June 23, 2010, finding no genuine issue of material fact regarding negligence.
- Cotton alleged the store failed to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition and failed to warn of the unsafe condition, and claimed improper training/supervision.
- Cotton’s fall stemmed from a “black liquid substance” leaking from underneath a cooler, spreading down the aisle; she described the liquid as dirty or black and drying in some areas.
- On appeal, Cotton argues Fred’s had constructive knowledge of the hazardous condition but failed to warn or remedy; the court affirms the grant of summary judgment.
- The judgment against Cotton is affirmed; costs taxed to Cotton.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper on constructive knowledge | Cotton asserts Fred’s had constructive knowledge of the spill | Fred’s contends no evidence of constructive knowledge exists | Yes; no genuine issue of material fact for constructive knowledge |
| Whether Cotton supplied admissible evidence of knowledge duration | Cotton provided evidence of time the hazard existed | Evidence is inconsistent; cannot prove duration | No; inconsistent deposition testimony precludes knowledge duration |
| Whether plaintiff can prove actual/constructive knowledge under premises liability standards | Cotton argues knowledge can be inferred from spill behavior | No sufficient evidence of prior leaks or warnings | No; plaintiff failed to show knowledge or opportunity to correct |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacox v. Circus Circus Mississippi, Inc., 908 So.2d 181 (Miss.Ct.App.2005) (constructive knowledge requires proven length of time the hazard existed; bare allegations insufficient)
- Waller v. Dixieland Food Stores, Inc., 492 So.2d 283 (Miss.1986) (constructive knowledge imputed by length of time of hazard)
- Miller v. R.B. Wall Oil Co., 970 So.2d 127 (Miss.2007) (plaintiff must prove owner had actual or constructive knowledge and opportunity to correct)
- Downs v. Choo, 656 So.2d 84 (Miss.1995) (premises liability: invitee must show owner caused or knew of hazard or had time to discover it)
- Karpinsky v. American Nat’l Ins. Co., 109 So.3d 84 (Miss.2013) (summary-judgment standard and burden on movant to show no genuine issue of material fact)