270 So. 3d 1084
Miss. Ct. App.2018Background
- Debra and William Burns rented a house from Matthew and Jody Gray; Mrs. Burns fell on the basement stairs on January 21, 2012 and sued the Grays (negligence/premises liability).
- Mrs. Burns has no memory of the fall; her nephew Michael Faulkner (age 13–14) was behind her, did not see her feet, and testified he did not know why she fell (later affidavit claimed she “lost her footing”).
- The Burnses’ expert, Daniel J. Ramsey, inspected the stairs, measured a 47.11° pitch, found code noncompliance and an inadequate handrail, and opined those conditions were a substantial factor in the fall.
- At deposition Ramsey conceded he did not know exactly why Mrs. Burns fell, could not rule out alternative causes (e.g., medication, fainting, tripping), and based some eliminations on statements from Faulkner and counsel rather than independent verification.
- The trial court struck Ramsey’s causation testimony as speculative and granted summary judgment for the Grays because the Burnses lacked competent evidence of proximate cause.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: plaintiffs failed to present admissible, non-speculative proof that the stairs proximately caused the fall.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was improper because plaintiffs established causation | Burns: expert and eyewitness show stair pitch/defective handrail were proximate cause | Grays: no competent evidence linking stair condition to the actual cause of fall; alternative causes not ruled out | Affirmed: summary judgment proper—no sufficient evidence of proximate cause |
| Whether the court erred in excluding expert Ramsey’s testimony | Burns: Ramsey applied reliable methods and measurements; opinions should be admitted | Grays: Ramsey’s causation opinions are speculative, not grounded in sufficient facts/data | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in striking Ramsey’s causation testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Amfed Nat’l Ins. Co. v. NTC Transp. Inc., 196 So. 3d 947 (Miss. 2016) (standard of review and summary judgment framework)
- Van v. Grand Casinos of Miss. Inc., 767 So. 2d 1014 (Miss. 2000) (nonmovant must produce more than a scintilla of evidence to defeat summary judgment)
- Rogers v. Barlow Eddy Jenkins P.A., 22 So. 3d 1219 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (expert testimony that fails to establish causation and relies on conjecture is insufficient to avoid summary judgment)
- Callicutt v. Prof’l Servs. of Potts Camp Inc., 974 So. 2d 216 (Miss. 2007) (a later affidavit cannot defeat summary judgment when it directly contradicts prior sworn testimony)