219 So. 3d 599
Miss. Ct. App.2017Background
- On Sept. 10, 2010, Marzettia Moore (invitee) slipped and fell near a frozen-seafood freezer in a Rouse’s grocery store and sustained soft-tissue injuries; a small puddle was observed after the fall.
- Moore testified she did not see water on the floor before falling and had no personal knowledge how long water had been there or that an employee caused it.
- Store manager Scott Neckels inspected the store ~25 minutes before the fall and saw no water; a maintenance record shows a floor check ~19 minutes before the fall with no spill noted.
- Moore introduced a repair invoice for a freezer repaired two days earlier; Rouse’s employees testified the invoice concerned a different freezer and no evidence showed active leaking at the time.
- Moore sued for negligence (premises liability). After Moore rested, Rouse’s moved for a directed verdict arguing Moore failed to prove causation or that Rouse’s had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard. The trial court granted the directed verdict and dismissed her claim with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moore proved Rouse’s caused the water or had knowledge of it | The freezer leaked and caused the wet condition that led to Moore’s fall | No evidence Rouse’s caused or knew of the water; inspections shortly before the fall showed no water | Court: Moore failed to prove causation or actual/constructive knowledge; directed verdict for Rouse’s affirmed |
| Whether constructive knowledge can be imputed to Rouse’s based on timing or prior repairs | Prior repair of a freezer suggests it may have been leaking and Rouse’s should have known | Repair related to a different unit; no evidence the freezer in question was leaking or that water was present long enough | Court: Prior repair insufficient; no record evidence water existed long enough to impute constructive knowledge |
| Whether lay testimony sufficed for causation absent medical-expert testimony (ancillary) | Medical-expert testimony not required to prove causation of injury | Argued Moore offered insufficient evidence generally | Court: Ruling on directed verdict made medical-expert argument moot; plaintiff’s evidence still legally insufficient |
| Whether trial court erred in granting directed verdict | Moore argued facts created jury question on store’s negligence/notice | Rouse’s argued insufficiency of plaintiff’s proof | Court: No error — legal sufficiency lacking; directed verdict appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- McGee v. River Region Med. Ctr., 59 So. 3d 575 (Miss. 2011) (directed-verdict standard tests legal sufficiency of plaintiff’s evidence)
- Anderson v. B.H. Acquisition Inc., 771 So. 2d 914 (Miss. 2000) (appellate review of directed verdict is de novo; evidence viewed as trial court did)
- Hudson v. Courtesy Motors Inc., 794 So. 2d 999 (Miss. 2001) (landowner owes invitee duty to exercise reasonable care to keep premises safe)
- McSwain v. Sys. Energy Res. Inc., 97 So. 3d 102 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (duty to maintain premises in reasonably safe condition for invitees)
- Grammar v. Dollar, 911 So. 2d 619 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (plaintiff in slip-and-fall must prove defendant caused the hazard, had actual knowledge, or had constructive knowledge)