Karpinsky v. American National Insurance Co.
2013 Miss. LEXIS 67
| Miss. | 2013Background
- Karpinsky slipped on a liquid in a puddle outside Lane Bryant at Edgewater Mall; Clark witnessed a spill after entering the store and five minutes later saw the fall.
- Karpinsky alleges Defendants knew of the water and failed to dry or warn patrons.
- Defendants ANIC and OraClean moved for summary judgment arguing no proof of how long the spill was present or of their negligence.
- Karpinsky did not timely respond; her attorney submitted an affidavit based on Clark’s unsworn statement and an incident report.
- Circuit court granted summary judgment; Court of Appeals reversed; Mississippi Supreme Court granted certiorari and reinstates circuit court judgment.
- The court clarifies that plaintiffs bear the burden of production at summary judgment and that hearsay or inadmissible evidence cannot create a genuine issue of material fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on notice and corrective-time elements | Karpinsky argues Defendants had notice and failed to correct | Defendants contend no genuine issue of fact on notice and time to remedy | Yes, Defendants entitled to summary judgment |
| Whether Levi’s affidavit and attached materials can support opposition | Levi’s affidavit shows notice and duration of spill | Affidavit is hearsay and not Rule 56(e) compliant | No, Levi’s affidavit not competent evidence; cannot defeat summary judgment |
| Role of the incident report in establishing notice | Incident report shows prior notice and time to notify housekeeping | Report is hearsay or inadmissible absent proper foundation | Incident report not admissible as Rule 56(e) evidence in support of opposing motion |
| Duty and standard for business owners at summary judgment | Owner must have knowledge and reasonable time to correct or warn | Owner is not insurer; reasonable time to fix may be allowed | Defendants met their summary-judgment burden; no genuine issue of material fact |
| Issue of length of time five minutes as enough to permit correction or warning | Five minutes could be sufficient under circumstances | Five minutes may be too long/not enough to act | Reasonable jury question; however, on record, no genuine issue; court granted judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. R.B. Wall Oil Co., Inc., 970 So.2d 127 (Miss. 2007) (elements of negligence and notice standard for summary judgment)
- J.C. Penney Co. v. Summit, 318 So.2d 829 (Miss. 1975) (summary judgment burden of production)
- Palmer v. Biloxi Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc., 564 So.2d 1346 (Miss. 1990) (duty of care and reasonable time to act)
- Borne v. Dunlop Tire Corp., Inc., 12 So.3d 565 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (hearsay and Rule 56(e) sufficiency issues on affidavits)
- Daniels v. GNB, Inc., 629 So.2d 595 (Miss. 1993) (summary judgment evidentiary standards)