Jackie Cox v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10749
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Coxes sued Wal-Mart in Fulton, Mississippi for injuries from Mrs. Cox's fall at an automatic door threshold on April 24, 2011.
- Witness Gunner testified the threshold rocked due to a loose plate, causing Mrs. Cox to trip; assistant manager Bailey disputed movement.
- Plaintiffs filed in state court; Wal-Mart removed to federal court in 2012 and moved for summary judgment.
- District court granted summary judgment, holding the threshold defect was not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law.
- This appeal challenges the district court’s handling of the defect’s danger, the Tate categorical exclusion, and loss of consortium.
- Court reverses, finds questions of fact on danger and repairs to premises, and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the threshold defect can be unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law | Cox argues the sudden, hidden rise of the threshold makes it unreasonably dangerous. | Wal-Mart contends only usual dangers exist; not unreasonably dangerous. | Issue for jury; district court erred in law |
| Whether Tate's categorical exclusion applies to defective thresholds | Tate does not justify a categorical exclusion for defects. | Tate creates exclusion for usual dangers like thresholds. | Categorical exclusion not extended to defects |
| Whether loss of consortium claim should be reinstated and remanded | Ricky Cox’s claim should survive if underlying injury claim does. | Loss of consortium depends on underlying personal injury claim's disposition. | Reverse dismissal; remand for proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Tate v. S. Jitney Jungle Co., 650 So.2d 1347 (Miss. 1995) (categorical exclusion for ‘usual’ dangers questioned)
- McGovern v. Scarborough, 566 So.2d 1225 (Miss. 1990) (raised threshold not unreasonably dangerous; context matters)
- Kroger, Inc. v. Ware, 512 So.2d 1281 (Miss. 1987) (permanent, known hazards bear on duty)
- Pigg v. Express Hotel Partners, LLC, 991 So.2d 1197 (Miss. 2008) (jury must decide whether hotel breached duty to keep premises safe)
- Mayfield v. The Hairbender, 903 So.2d 733 (Miss. 2005) (inspections and knowledge issues for jury)
- Parker v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 261 F. App’x 724 (5th Cir. 2008) (normally encountered dangers not hazardous; minor defects not per se unreasonably dangerous)
- Wood v. RIH Acquisitions MS II, LLC, 556 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 2009) (de novo review of summary judgment in Mississippi premises liability)
- J & J Timber Co. v. Broome, 932 So.2d 1 (Miss. 2006) (underlying personal injury disposition affects loss of consortium)