274 So. 3d 952
Miss. Ct. App.2019Background
- On Aug. 6, 2008, Linda Robinson (invitee) was struck by a free‑standing casino sign at Horseshoe Casino after another patron (Arthur Johnson) stumbled into it; she received only on‑site EMT care and left.
- Robinson sued the casino in 2011 for premises liability and under the Dram Shop Act, alleging negligent stowage of the sign and that Johnson was visibly intoxicated; she later conceded claims against Johnson and abandoned the Dram Shop claim at oral argument.
- The court set discovery deadlines; Robinson delayed responses and did not timely depose casino employees or designate experts; she sought to amend admissions and later moved for a continuance under M.R.C.P. 56(f) three days before the summary‑judgment hearing.
- The casino moved for summary judgment; at the hearing Robinson conceded lack of proof of visible intoxication and the trial court denied the Rule 56(f) continuance and granted summary judgment for lack of evidence of breach and dangerous condition.
- Robinson appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the continuance denial was not an abuse of discretion and that Robinson failed to produce evidence showing the casino breached a duty or that the sign (or an intoxicated patron known to the casino) constituted a dangerous condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of Rule 56(f) continuance was abuse of discretion | Robinson argued she needed more discovery (employee depositions, exemplar of sign) to oppose summary judgment | Casino argued motion was untimely, discovery dilatory, and record shows availability issues were raised by defendant | Denial affirmed: motion untimely and no abuse of discretion |
| Whether summary judgment improper for lack of expert proof of causation | Robinson argued her testimony and medical bills suffice to show causation | Casino argued no expert proof and no depositions/exhibits supporting breach or causation | Affirmed: lack of evidence of breach/dangerous condition; absence of expert testimony only noted as additional support |
| Whether casino breached duty to invitee by sign placement | Robinson contended sign was negligently stowed and posed a dangerous condition | Casino maintained no proof sign was negligently placed or inherently dangerous; incident caused by patron tripping | Affirmed: Robinson failed to raise genuine issue that sign placement breached duty |
| Whether intoxicated patron created a dangerous condition imputable to casino | Robinson claimed patron’s intoxication made premises dangerous | Casino noted no proof Johnson was intoxicated or that casino knew of intoxication; plaintiff conceded lack of proof | Affirmed: no evidence casino knew of or served a visibly intoxicated patron; Dram Shop claim dropped |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Hindman, 138 So. 3d 214 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (Rule 56(f) continuance standard and appellate review of abuse of discretion)
- Stallworth v. Sanford, 921 So. 2d 340 (Miss. 2006) (delay/dilatory conduct defeats Rule 56(f) continuance)
- Wal‑Mart Stores Inc. v. Johnson, 807 So. 2d 382 (Miss. 2001) (expert testimony not required when negligence is within lay understanding)
- Downs v. Ackerman, 115 So. 3d 785 (Miss. 2013) (medical bills alone do not prove proximate causation)
- Karpinsky v. American National Ins. Co., 109 So. 3d 84 (Miss. 2013) (summary judgment standard under M.R.C.P. 56)