230 So. 3d 1083
Miss. Ct. App.2017Background
- Griffin attended a charity youth baseball tournament at Grenada Youth League (GYL) park and fell while walking down a grassy slope from the gravel parking area to the fields, breaking her ankle.
- She testified she stepped into a grass-concealed ‘‘hole’’ about 1–2 inches deep and ~4 inches wide; GYL personnel inspected the spot after the fall and found no hole.
- GYL mows the park regularly (Yard Pro mowed three days earlier); board members regularly traverse and inspect the grounds and have means to fill holes.
- Griffin sued GYL on a premises-liability theory alleging negligence and that she was an invitee; GYL moved for summary judgment arguing the condition was not dangerous and that GYL lacked knowledge.
- The circuit court found disputed facts about the hole’s existence but held as a matter of law the premises were reasonably safe and no warning was required; this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the alleged ground indentation constituted a "dangerous condition" supporting premises liability | The one-inch depression concealed by 3–4 inch grass created a hazardous, non-apparent condition requiring warning or repair | A minor 1–2 inch indentation in grass is not a dangerous condition; landowners are not strict insurers of all minor surface irregularities | Held: Not a dangerous condition as a matter of law; no liability |
| Whether GYL had actual or constructive knowledge of the condition | GYL’s regular inspections and maintenance support inference it knew or should have known of the hole | No evidence that GYL created or knew of the indentation; no complaints or prior incidents; condition could have been transient | Held: Plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on actual or constructive knowledge |
| Whether a reasonable inspection would have discovered the alleged hole | A reasonable inspection would have revealed the hidden depression beneath the grass | No proof that reasonable inspections would have uncovered a small, possibly recently created indentation | Held: No evidence that reasonable inspections would have discovered the condition |
| Plaintiff’s status (invitee vs. licensee) and resulting duty | Griffin argued she was a public invitee attending a public tournament | GYL argued licensee/status disputed | Court assumed invitee for appeal but ruled for GYL on other grounds; classification not outcome-determinative here |
Key Cases Cited
- Pigg v. Express Hotel Partners LLC, 991 So. 2d 1197 (Miss. 2008) (summary-judgment standard reviewed de novo)
- Jones v. Wal-Mart Stores E. LP, 187 So. 3d 1100 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (minor cracks/uneven surfaces often are not hazardous conditions)
- Jerry Lee’s Grocery Inc. v. Thompson, 528 So. 2d 293 (Miss. 1988) (landowner owes invitee duty to keep premises reasonably safe and warn of non-apparent dangers)
- Alexander v. Jackson Cty. Historical Soc’y Inc., 227 So. 2d 291 (Miss. 1969) (distinguishes unusual, owner-created concealed hazards from naturally occurring defects)
- Jones v. Imperial Palace of Miss. LLC, 147 So. 3d 318 (Miss. 2014) (plaintiff must show owner had actual or constructive knowledge of condition)