Haggard v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 75 So. 3d 1120

Haggard slipped on a clear substance in a Wal-Mart store in Greenville, Mississippi, on July 3–8, 2007, and injuries were alleged.
She filed a premises liability/negligence action in county court seeking relief from Wal-Mart; Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment with several hearings.
Three affidavits from acquaintances alleged Wal-Mart employees knew or should have known of the hazard and failed to address it.
Wal-Mart manager Turner testified he did not know who caused the spill and did not see a substance on the floor before the incident; he walked the area about 20 minutes prior and saw no spill.
Wal-Mart employee Lewis testified she had no knowledge of the substance before the fall and only learned of it afterward; Haggard admitted no one informed her of prior knowledge by Wal-Mart.
The circuit court affirmed the county court’s grant of summary judgment; the Mississippi Supreme Court reviews de novo and affirms if no genuine issues of material fact exist.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Wal-Mart have actual knowledge of the dangerous condition?	Haggard contends Wal-Mart knew or should have known of the hazard.	Wal-Mart did not have actual knowledge; no witness identified the substance or its origin.	No genuine issue; no actual knowledge shown.
Was Wal-Mart liable for constructive knowledge?	Affidavits show employees in proximity and failure to clean; hazard existed long enough to impute knowledge.	No admissible time frame or evidence of duration; affidavits are conclusory.	No constructive knowledge; time frame not established.
Did Wal-Mart’s conduct constitute a negligent act causing the fall?	Wal-Mart or employees’ negligent act caused the injury by leaving a hazard.	Evidence shows no negligent act or causal link; not shown who caused the substance.	No negligent act shown.

Rod v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 931 So.2d 692 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (premises-liability three-step framework for invitees)
Leffler v. Sharp, 891 So.2d 152 (Miss. 2004) (duty to keep premises reasonably safe)
Anderson v. B.H. Acquisition, Inc., 771 So.2d 914 (Miss. 2000) (summary judgment standard and duty to warn for hidden dangers)
Waller v. Dixieland Food Stores, Inc., 492 So.2d 283 (Miss. 1986) (owners not insurers of safety; constructive knowledge concepts)
Munford, Inc. v. Fleming, 597 So.2d 1282 (Miss. 1992) (constructive knowledge and time requirements for hazardous conditions)
Dickens v. Wal-Mart Stores, 841 F. Supp. 768 (S.D. Miss. 1994) (federal perspective on time frame in constructive knowledge)
Byrne v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 877 So.2d 462 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (negligence standards in premises liability and knowledge)
Pigg v. Express Hotel Partners, LLC, 991 So.2d 1197 (Miss. 2008) (summary-judgment burden on movant; non-movant’s duty to show genuine issues)
Moss v. Batesville Casket Co., 935 So.2d 393 (Miss. 2006) (summary-judgment standard and genuine-issue burden)