102 So. 3d 341
Miss. Ct. App.2012Background
- Frazier, 76, slipped in a McDonald’s in D’Iberville, Mississippi on February 8, 2007.
- Video surveillance captured events before and after the fall.
- McDonald’s placed two wet-floor warning signs around the mopped area before and after the fall.
- Frazier sued on September 11, 2009 alleging a greasy floor and failure to warn of dangerous conditions not readily apparent.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for McDonald’s on February 25, 2011, concluding warnings were adequate.
- The Mississippi Court of Appeals reviews the grant de novo and affirms the summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty status and standard of care for invitees | Frazier was an invitee; McDonald’s owed a duty to keep premises safe and warn of hidden dangers. | McDonald’s duties were met; signs were sufficient to warn of a freshly mopped area. | No genuine issue; McDonald’s warning signs were adequate. |
| Adequacy of warning for hidden dangers | Signs were inadequate because the floor could have been greasy and the mop greasy. | Signs were clearly visible; plaintiff admitted seeing the first sign and chose to proceed. | Signs were adequate to warn of hidden danger; no breach proven. |
| Sufficiency of plaintiff’s evidence to defeat summary judgment | Evidence showed the floor was greasy and the mop may have been greasy. | Plaintiff failed to provide significant and probative evidence of negligence and causation. | No substantial evidence of duty breach or proximate causation; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holt v. Summers, 942 So.2d 284 (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (standard for rebutting a summary-judgment motion in tort cases; requires significant probative evidence)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (clear standard for genuine disputes of material fact in summary judgment)
- J.C. Penney Co. v. Sumrall, 318 So.2d 829 (Miss.1975) (negligence elements require evidence before jury)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (burden of proof shifting on summary judgment; prima facie case)
- Mayfield v. The Hairbender, 903 So.2d 733 (Miss.2005) (duty of invitee to exercise ordinary care for safety)
- Magnusen v. Pine Belt Inv. Corp., 963 So.2d 1279 (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (status analysis (invitee) in premises-liability)
- Gen. Tire & Rubber Co. v. Darnell, 221 So.2d 104 (Miss.1969) (invitee duty to use ordinary care)
- Rod v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 931 So.2d 692 (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (comparison to similar elderly slip-and-fall case without warning signs)