292 So.3d 245
Miss. Ct. App.2019Background
- On Dec. 21, 2015, Wilda Ann Martin tripped and fell in a Trustmark office building while following her daughter into a first-floor women’s restroom and suffered a serious shoulder injury.
- The restroom lies past a short entranceway of white vinyl tile; a sloping threshold (allegedly 1 1/8") separates the entranceway from the restroom floor and is a slightly different shade of white.
- Martin and her daughter entered after a coffee-shop employee told them the restroom was “right through those doors”; the employee sometimes permitted visitors to use the restroom but had no known formal authorization.
- Martin alleged the threshold was a dangerous defect (and should have been color-marked); Trustmark moved for summary judgment arguing the threshold was not a dangerous condition and Martin was at most a licensee.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for Trustmark; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the threshold was a common architectural feature, not an unreasonably dangerous condition.
- A dissent argued genuine factual disputes (location/visibility of threshold, employee authority, invitee status) should preclude summary judgment and send the case to a jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the threshold was an unreasonably dangerous condition | Martin: threshold was an unexpected tripping hazard and insufficiently contrasted in color; expert: a tripping hazard | Trustmark: ordinary architectural threshold—customers expect such features; not dangerous as a matter of law | Held: Not a dangerous condition; ordinary threshold is not unreasonably dangerous; summary judgment affirmed |
| Plaintiff's status on premises (invitee vs. licensee) | Martin: she was an invitee (public restroom access implied) | Trustmark: at best a licensee because restroom not open to public and employee lacked authorization to invite | Held: Court assumed invitee for argument but ruled outcome same—no dangerous condition; did not decide status definitively |
| Whether employee’s conduct created permission/authority to use restroom | Martin: coffee-shop employee told them to go through the door, implying permission | Trustmark: employee had no authority from Trustmark to permit public use | Held: Disputed but unnecessary to resolve because threshold not dangerous; court did not make final ruling on employee authority |
| Whether factual disputes precluded summary judgment | Martin (and dissent): contradictions about threshold location/visibility and authority create genuine issues for jury | Trustmark: photographic evidence and precedent support ruling as matter of law | Held: Majority found no material factual issue as to dangerousness and affirmed; dissent would remand for trial on disputed facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Dickinson v. Vanderburg, 141 So. 3d 455 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (two-inch raised threshold not unreasonably dangerous; summary judgment affirmed)
- Benson v. Rather, 211 So. 3d 748 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (raised lip between service bays is common architectural feature, not an unreasonably dangerous condition)
- Tate v. S. Jitney Jungle Co., 650 So. 2d 1347 (Miss. 1995) (customers expected to encounter ordinary architectural features; threshold not inherently dangerous)
- Fulton v. Robinson, 664 So. 2d 170 (Miss. 1995) (internal/man-made adjacent hazards may raise jury questions about openness and obviousness)
- McGovern v. Searborough, 566 So. 2d 1225 (Miss. 1990) (raised threshold at building entry found reasonably safe)
- Clark v. Moore Mem’l United Methodist Church, 538 So. 2d 760 (Miss. 1989) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Pigg v. Express Hotel Partners LLC, 991 So. 2d 1197 (Miss. 2008) (nonmovant must set forth specific facts showing genuine issues for trial)
- Glover ex rel. Glover v. Jackson State Univ., 968 So. 2d 1267 (Miss. 2007) (movant entitled to summary judgment if no genuine issue of material fact)