Peter J. Patricola v. Imperial Palace of Mississippi, LLC
235 So. 3d 214
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Lanitia Patricola (substituted by estate after her death) slipped on a ~12-inch puddle on marble tile where a carpet-to-tile seam met the casino entrance; fall occurred stepping from carpet to tile.
- Directly above the puddle was a long, narrow linear diffuser (vent) that carried chilled air; Patricola and her husband observed visible condensation on the vent and water stains on the ceiling. They photographed the vent weeks later and again observed condensation; husband also observed water on the floor then.
- Casino employees admitted condensation sometimes formed on lobby vents and that they cleaned it; one incident report prepared the day of the fall noted condensation leaking from the ceiling onto the carpet nearby.
- No witness observed water actively falling at the moment of the fall; no alternate source of the puddle was identified in the record.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Imperial Palace, finding plaintiff failed to show the vent caused the puddle or that the casino had actual/constructive notice; Court of Appeals reviewed de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source of water on floor | Puddle came from condensation on the overhead vent; photos and testimony show vent condensation and stained ceiling | Plaintiff needed expert proof to show condensation could concentrate and drip into one puddle; evidence insufficient | Court: Reasonable inferences permit jury to find vent condensation caused puddle; expert not required |
| Notice (actual or constructive) of puddle | Casino knew vents regularly condensed; weather made dripping likely so casino had notice or at least should have expected puddles to form | Casino denied recurring problem at that vent and argued no specific notice of this puddle | Court: Evidence created genuine fact issue that dangerous condition was reasonably probable and/or puddle accumulated over time giving constructive notice |
| Operator-created danger / negligent maintenance | Casino created danger by allowing vents to condense and having no reporting policy; this would obviate need to show notice of specific puddle | Plaintiff offered no evidence the HVAC/vent was negligently installed or maintained | Court: Plaintiff alleged creation theory but provided no specific evidence of negligent construction/maintenance; cannot prevail on that theory without such proof |
Key Cases Cited
- Grammar v. Dollar, 911 So. 2d 619 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (defines business invitee and owner duty)
- Robinson v. Ratliff, 757 So. 2d 1098 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) (owner’s duty to invitees to exercise ordinary care and warn of nonobvious dangers)
- Davis v. Hoss, 869 So. 2d 397 (Miss. 2004) (de novo review of summary judgment and standard)
- Anderson v. B.H. Acquisition Inc., 771 So. 2d 914 (Miss. 2000) (plaintiff must prove negligence, notice, or condition existing long enough for constructive notice)
- Buckel v. Chaney, 47 So. 3d 148 (Miss. 2010) (circumstantial evidence can defeat summary judgment if it yields reasonable inference)
- F.W. Woolworth Co. v. Stokes, 191 So. 2d 411 (Miss. 1966) (where hazardous circumstances make an event reasonably probable, plaintiff need not prove notice of specific condition)
- Lockwood v. Isle of Capri Corp., 962 So. 2d 645 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (application of Woolworth in premises cases)
- Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Tinsley, 998 S.W.2d 664 (Tex. Ct. App. 1999) (puddle accumulation over time supports inference of constructive notice)
- Jerry Lee’s Grocery Inc. v. Thompson, 528 So. 2d 293 (Miss. 1988) (liability when proprietor’s negligence creates hazardous condition)