Debbie Jones v. Dragway Enterprises, Inc.
203 So. 3d 1157
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On April 16, 2013, Debbie Jones attended a racing event at Dragway Enterprises, paid admission, and signed a Release and Waiver of Liability before entering the bleacher area.
- About an hour after entering, Jones alleges a wooden bleacher collapsed beneath her, causing injuries; she and a friend submitted affidavits describing the fall.
- Jones sued Dragway for premises negligence alleging failure to maintain safe bleachers and filed discovery; the parties’ discovery deadline was February 1, 2015.
- Dragway moved for summary judgment (Feb. 13, 2015) supported by an affidavit from its president stating no knowledge of defective bleachers and that Dragway conducted regular inspections; some of Dragway’s discovery responses were produced late.
- Jones sought a continuance (filed Mar. 17) to conduct further discovery (including a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition) but did not submit a Rule 56(f) affidavit explaining what additional facts she could obtain.
- The Hinds County Circuit Court granted summary judgment to Dragway (Mar. 18, 2015); the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding Jones failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on breach, notice, or proximate cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a continuance/preclusion of further discovery was improper | Jones argued Dragway delayed discovery responses and she needed more time (including Rule 30(b)(6)) to rebut summary judgment | Dragway argued summary judgment was ripe given trial date and plaintiff failed to present Rule 56(f) affidavit showing what discovery would produce | Court: Denial not an abuse; Jones failed to satisfy Rule 56(f) or show diligence, so continuance unnecessary |
| Whether Dragway breached duty (notice/inspection) causing the collapse | Jones argued Dragway failed to maintain/inspect bleachers and had constructive or actual notice of danger | Dragway relied on president’s affidavit denying knowledge of defects and asserting regular inspections and repairs | Court: No genuine issue — Jones offered no evidence of the bleachers’ condition, duration of defect, or notice; summary judgment proper |
| Whether the signed waiver barred Jones’s claim (scope of waiver) | Jones argued waiver applied only to listed "restricted areas" and she was in a public area, so waiver did not apply | Dragway argued waiver covered the event/premises broadly and encompassed the incident | Court: Circuit court decided summary judgment on lack of breach/causation, not waiver; appellate court declined to resolve waiver question but found plaintiff’s other failures dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Dickinson v. Vanderburg, 141 So. 3d 455 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (summary-judgment standard and movant/plaintiff burdens explained)
- Owens v. Thomae, 759 So. 2d 1117 (Miss. 1999) (Rule 56(f) continuance principles; diligence and specificity required)
- Hobgood v. Koch Pipeline Se. Inc., 769 So. 2d 838 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) (Rule 56(f) affidavit requirement and effect)
- Jones v. Imperial Palace of Mississippi LLC, 147 So. 3d 318 (Miss. 2014) (premises owner duty to inspect and need to show duration/that reasonable inspections would have discovered defect)
- Double Quick Inc. v. Moore, 73 So. 3d 1162 (Miss. 2011) (premises-liability duty and elements outlined)
- Ratcliff v. Rainbow Casino-Vicksburg P’ship, 914 So. 2d 762 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (affirming summary judgment where plaintiff failed to show owner notice or defect duration)