John Renner v. Retzer Resources, Inc.
236 So. 3d 810
| Miss. | 2017Background
- On Aug. 13, 2012, 76-year-old John Renner tripped at the condiment area of a McDonald’s in Winona when his left foot caught the protruding leg of a stacked highchair; he suffered facial and shoulder injuries.
- Eyewitness Greta Siegel testified the highchairs were stored behind a half-wall with legs jutting into the aisle, had previously caused patrons to stumble, and she had repeatedly complained to employees about their placement.
- McDonald’s shift manager Velencia Hubbard saw the fall but claimed uncertainty about whether the chairs protruded and maintained they were properly stored; she acknowledged an incident report was made.
- Retzer Resources’ IT witness testified the surveillance system is motion-activated and overwrites recordings after ~63–64 days; a preservation request arrived 65 days after the fall and no video footage was produced.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding a highchair’s presence is a normal restaurant condition and that Renner failed to show actual or constructive notice; the court’s opinion did not address the missing video evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper on premises-liability claim | Renner: testimony (Siegel, witnesses) shows hidden, hazardous placement of highchairs and prior notice to McDonald’s, creating triable issues on actual/constructive knowledge | Defendants: highchairs are ordinary restaurant fixtures an invitee should expect; no evidence an employee placed or knew of a dangerous condition | Reversed: testimony created genuine issues of material fact on notice, hazard, and facts for jury to resolve; summary judgment improper |
| Admissibility of Siegel’s testimony | Siegel: lay observations about visibility, prior incidents, and complaints are permissible lay opinion based on perception | Defendants: testimony is inadmissible opinion/expert testimony about hazard | Rejected: Court held Rule 701 permits Siegel’s lay-opinion observations; not expert testimony |
| Whether missing surveillance video precludes summary judgment (spoliation) | Renner: loss/destruction of video supports adverse inference and precludes summary judgment | Defendants: video not available; dispute about who had or reviewed tapes | Court: issue not fully developed; if discovery later shows spoliation, plaintiff entitled to spoliation instruction; not a standalone bar to summary judgment here |
| Appropriate standard on summary judgment | Renner: moving party must show no genuine issue; disputes over facts require trial | Defendants: asserted no material factual dispute | Court: applied de novo review and viewed evidence in plaintiff’s favor; held trial judge improperly resolved factual disputes instead of denying summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Karpinsky v. American Nat’l Ins. Co., 109 So. 3d 84 (Miss. 2013) (summary-judgment standard and de novo review)
- Pratt v. Gulfport–Biloxi Reg’l Airport Auth., 97 So. 3d 68 (Miss. 2012) (viewing evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Mayfield v. The Hairbender, 903 So. 2d 733 (Miss. 2005) (duty owed to invitee; warn for hidden dangers)
- Anderson v. B.H. Acquisition, Inc., 771 So. 2d 914 (Miss. 2000) (elements for trip-and-fall recovery: negligence, actual knowledge, or constructive knowledge)
- Downs v. Choo, 656 So. 2d 84 (Miss. 1995) (constructive notice principles)
- Prescott v. Leaf River Forest Prods., Inc., 740 So. 2d 301 (Miss. 1999) (trial court must not resolve disputed facts on summary judgment)
- Duckworth v. Warren, 10 So. 3d 433 (Miss. 2009) (burden on moving party and benefit of doubt to nonmoving party)
- Ladnier v. Hester, 98 So. 3d 1025 (Miss. 2012) (benefit of every reasonable doubt to nonmoving party on summary judgment)
- Copeland v. City of Jackson, 548 So. 2d 970 (Miss. 1989) (spoliation instruction requires evidentiary support)
- Dowdle Butane Gas Co., Inc. v. Moore, 831 So. 2d 1124 (Miss. 2002) (spoliation inference and jury instruction permitted)
- DeLaughter v. Lawrence County Hosp., 601 So. 2d 818 (Miss. 1992) (spoliation inference principles)
- Thomas v. Isle of Capri Casino, 781 So. 2d 125 (Miss. 2001) (spoliation inference can arise from negligent loss of evidence)