Joseph Jones v. Imperial Palace of Mississippi, LLC, 2014 Miss. LEXIS 468

Jones, a patron (invitee) of Imperial Palace, was injured in the parking garage by tripping over a misaligned concrete parking bumper.
Jones sued Imperial Palace alleging the bumper was misaligned and caused the fall; the trial court granted Imperial Palace summary judgment.
The Court of Appeals reversed, finding evidence of actual and constructive knowledge and possible failure to inspect; the supreme court granted certiorari.
The majority held no evidence that Imperial created the dangerous condition or had timely notice of it.
The court emphasized the need for actual or constructive knowledge in time to remedy or warn, and noted the absence of temporal evidence for the hazard.
Regarding inspections, the court concluded that without evidence of the hazard’s duration, inspections could not have revealed the dangerous condition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Imperial know or create the dangerous condition?	Jones argues knowledge or creation can be inferred from the incident report and Dillon's testimony.	Imperial contends there is no evidence the bumper was created by Imperial or known to be misaligned at injury time.	No genuine issue; no evidence of creation or knowledge.
Did Imperial have timely actual or constructive notice of the danger?	Dillon testified bumpers occasionally misaligned and reported; evidence suggests notice sufficiently timely.	No proof that the particular bumper was known or that notice existed in time to remedy or warn.	No timely notice established.
Could reasonable inspections have revealed the danger?	Imperial failed to conduct inspections; duration of the hazard could render inspections actionable.	Without duration evidence, inspections could not have revealed a hazard created by another patron just minutes before.	Insufficient temporal evidence; inspections would not have prevented here.

Drennan v. Kroger Co., 672 So.2d 1168 (Miss.1996) (constructive notice based on known hazards and surrounding conditions)
Moore v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 252 Miss. 693, 173 So.2d 603 (Miss.1965) (duration of hazard must be sufficient for notice; jury question)
Pigg v. Express Hotel Partners, LLC, 991 So.2d 1197 (Miss.2008) (whether reasonable inspections would reveal a dangerous condition is a jury question)
Waller v. Dixieland Food Stores, Inc., 492 So.2d 283 (Miss.1986) (premises liability duty and reasonable inspections framework)