Melinda Thomas v. The Shed 53, LLC, 331 So.3d 66

On Sept. 19, 2015, Melinda Thomas (an invitee) sat at an outdoor wooden picnic table at The Shed 53 LLC in Gulfport; a bench seat board cracked and collapsed after her meal, and she claimed back, wrist, and ankle injuries.
The Shed purchased picnic tables from big-box stores (Lowe’s/Home Depot), inspected and maintained them regularly, and had bought replacement tables in 2014; staff testified no prior complaints or detected defects with the subject bench.
Thomas sued in 2017 alleging The Shed provided substandard, residential‑grade furniture unsuited for commercial restaurant use and performed inadequate inspections.
Thomas submitted two experts (Dr. Eric Nusbaum and engineer Andrew Cherepon) who opined the tables were residential grade, contained knots, and were unsuitable for restaurant use; neither expert inspected the discarded subject bench (they relied on photos and an exemplar table).
The Shed moved to strike the experts under Daubert and for summary judgment; the trial court struck the experts as irrelevant/unreliable and granted summary judgment, finding no evidence of actual or constructive notice and that mechanical failure alone is not per se negligence.
The Court of Appeals affirmed: no genuine issue of material fact that The Shed breached its duty, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert opinions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether The Shed breached its duty to keep premises reasonably safe (notice of defect)	Thomas: The Shed knew or should have known benches were dangerous and routinely failed.	The Shed: No actual/constructive notice; routine inspections and maintenance; no prior reports.	Held: No genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment for The Shed.
Whether purchasing residential‑grade picnic tables created a dangerous, actionable condition	Thomas: Buying cheap, residential furniture for restaurant use created the dangerous condition.	The Shed: A wooden picnic bench is not inherently dangerous; no duty to purchase commercial‑grade furniture.	Held: Failure of a bench alone does not establish a dangerous condition or negligence.
Adequacy of The Shed’s inspection and maintenance practices	Thomas: Inspections were substandard and failed to detect defects.	The Shed: Employees routinely inspected, repaired, rotated, and replaced tables when needed.	Held: Testimony showed reasonable inspections; no evidence of deficient maintenance.
Admissibility of expert testimony (Daubert/Rule 702)	Thomas: Experts’ opinions created a factual dispute showing substandard furniture and notice.	The Shed: Experts’ opinions were irrelevant, speculative, lacked testing/methodology, and didn’t show notice.	Held: Trial court did not abuse discretion striking the experts as unreliable/irrelevant; even if admitted they would not create a genuine issue.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (admissibility standard for expert testimony)
Miss. Transp. Comm'n v. McLemore, 863 So. 2d 31 (Miss. 2003) (Daubert factors and expert reliability)
Tunica County v. Matthews, 926 So. 2d 209 (Miss. 2006) (standard of review for expert admission)
Page v. Biloxi Reg. Med. Ctr., 91 So. 3d 642 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (mechanical failure alone insufficient to prove negligence)
Walker v. Cellular S. Inc., 309 So. 3d 16 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020) (analogous exclusion of expert and summary judgment affirmed)
Langston v. Kidder, 670 So. 2d 1 (Miss. 1995) (mechanical devices may fail without proving negligence)