Pearlie Wright v. R.M.Smith Investments, L.P., 210 So. 3d 555

On Oct. 18, 2012, Pearlie Wright was dragged and injured after a thief grabbed her purse from her car in a parking lot at property owned by R.M. Smith Investments, L.P. (Smith).
Wright sued Smith for premises liability, alleging an "atmosphere of violence" on the property and that Smith’s failure to provide adequate security proximately caused her injuries.
Wright relied on one safety expert, Gerald Jones, who opined that Smith should have provided monitored cameras, signage, and armed patrols; Jones did not cite sources, data, or explain how these measures would have prevented the incident.
Wright also produced incident reports and calls-for-service covering a one-mile radius over five years, showing only one violent incident on the subject property (an armed robbery inside the store more than a year earlier).
The trial court struck Jones’s causation opinions as speculative and unreliable and granted Smith summary judgment; Wright appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of expert testimony (Daubert/Rule 702)	Jones’s affidavit satisfies Rule 702 and establishes national/Mississippi security standards and causation.	Jones’s opinions are unsupported, speculative, and lack methodology, sources, or testing.	Court struck Jones’s opinions as unreliable and speculative under Daubert and M.R.E. 702.
Whether an "atmosphere of violence" existed	Calls-for-service and incident reports (one prior violent incident) establish an atmosphere of violence.	The single prior violent incident is insufficient to put owner on notice of foreseeable parking-lot assaults.	One prior incident was insufficient as a matter of law to show an atmosphere of violence.
Causation from alleged inadequate security measures	Failure to have cameras, signage, and armed security proximately caused Wright’s injuries; those measures would have prevented the incident.	Plaintiff’s proof lacks evidence or analysis showing how the measures would have prevented this specific incident.	Expert’s cursory assertions do not establish proximate causation; causation unsupported—insufficient evidence.
Summary judgment for defendant	N/A — Wright contends genuine issues exist.	Smith argues no triable issue: no atmosphere of violence and no competent causation evidence.	Summary judgment affirmed: no genuine issue of material fact on notice or causation.

Thrash v. Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles LLP, 183 So. 3d 838 (Miss. 2016) (standard and review of summary judgment)
Monsanto Co. v. Hall, 912 So. 2d 134 (Miss. 2005) (summary-judgment evidence viewed in light most favorable to non-movant)
Miss. Transp. Comm’n v. McLemore, 863 So. 2d 31 (Miss. 2003) (standard for admission/suppression of expert testimony)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (criteria for admissibility of expert scientific testimony)
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (Daubert principles apply to all expert testimony)
Inn By the Sea Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Seainn LLC, 170 So. 3d 496 (Miss. 2015) (Daubert factors in Mississippi)
Kroger v. Knox, 98 So. 3d 441 (Miss. 2012) (premises-liability requirement to show owner knew or should have known of violent propensity or atmosphere)
Bennett v. Highland Park Apartments LLC, 170 So. 3d 450 (Miss. 2015) (unsupported expert causation statements insufficient)
Double Quick, Inc. v. Lymas, 50 So. 3d 292 (Miss. 2010) (rejecting cursory expert causation linking lack of security to injury)