Karpinsky v. Amer. Nat'l Ins. Co., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2010-CT-02084-SCT Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-02084-COA ; 2010-CA-02084-COA ; 2010-CT-02084-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-07-2013 Opinion Author: Lamar, J. Holding: Court of Appeals Reversed; Circuit Court Reinstated and Affirmed |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-10-2012 |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Premises liability - Summary judgment standard - M.R.C.P. 56(c) & (e) - Burden of production - Affidavits - Personal knowledge - Unsworn statement Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Dickinson and Randolph, P.JJ., Pierce and Coleman, JJ. Dissenting Author : Kitchens, J. Dissent Joined By : Chandler and King, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY Writ of Certiorari: yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-01-2010 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Lawrence P. Bourgeois, Jr. Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED IN FAVOR OF APPELLEES Case Number: A2402-08-139 |
|
| Note: | The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals by holding that the Appellant failed to present evidence of negligence. The original Court of Appeals opinion can be found at http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO74036.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Laura Karpinsky |
WILLIAM C. MILLER |
||
| Appellee: | American National Insurance Company and Oraclean, Inc. | SCOTT D. SMITH MARK NORTON V. K. SMITH, III |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Personal injury - Premises liability - Summary judgment standard - M.R.C.P. 56(c) & (e) - Burden of production - Affidavits - Personal knowledge - Unsworn statement |
| Summary of the Facts: | Laura Karpinsky slipped and fell in a puddle of water outside a Lane Bryant store in Edgewater Mall. Karpinsky filed suit against American National Insurance Company, the owner of the mall, and OraClean, which provides housekeeping services for the mall. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment which the court granted. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Pursuant to M.R.C.P. 56(c), summary judgment is appropriate if the “pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Rule 56(e) provides that the party opposing summary judgment “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but his response, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, will be entered against him.” The moving party bears the burden of production only where the party would bear the burden of proof at trial. Karpinsky was a business invitee when the accident occurred. To obtain relief, she was required to produce evidence that the defendants had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition as well as a sufficient opportunity to correct it. Because the defendants do not carry any burden of production at trial, they also do not carry any burden of production at the summary-judgment stage. To support their motion, the defendants offered the affidavits of Karpinsky and a woman who had witnessed the fall. Karpinsky testified that she had slipped on a liquid, but did not know what the liquid was, how it got on the floor, or how long it had been there. The eyewitness testified that there was no water on the floor when she went into Lane Bryant, but that there was a cup with ice in it on the floor when she exited approximately five minutes later. Based on these affidavits, the defendants sufficiently met their initial burden of persuading the circuit court that there were no issues of material fact about whether the defendants had notice of the spill or had failed to clean up the spill in a reasonable time. To withstand summary judgment, Karpinsky was then required to produce sufficient evidence to establish the essential elements of her case on which she would bear the burden of proof at trial. The day before the hearing, Karpinsky filed an affidavit executed by her former attorney. Attached to the affidavit were an unsworn recorded statement from the eyewitness and a copy of the incident report regarding Karpinsky’s fall. The attorney’s affidavit was not based upon personal knowledge of the facts he attempted to establish as required by Rule 56(e). The copy of the incident report presented was not sworn or certified as required by Rule 56(e). And, the unsworn statement of the eyewitness would not be admissible as substantive evidence. Thus, the circuit court correctly granted summary judgment to defendants, since Karpinsky failed to meet her burden. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
