Bernard v. 33 Foods, Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-01534-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-30-2004 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Dangerous condition - Failure to warn Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Myers, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-11-2003 Appealed from: Rankin County Circuit Court Judge: William E. Chapman, III Disposition: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED Case Number: 2000-27 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | BBrenda Bernard and Hubert Bernard |
HARRY MERRITT MCCUMBER
CHRISTOPHER WAYNE COFER |
||
| Appellee: | 33 Foods, Inc. d/b/a Taco Bell and R.G.T Management, Inc. d/b/a Taco Bell | TROY PHILIP HUSKEY J. STEPHEN WRIGHT |
|
|
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 - Dangerous condition - Failure to warn |
| Summary of the Facts: | Upon entering Taco Bell, Brenda Bernard slipped and fell to the floor injuring her back. Brenda and her husband, Hubert, filed suit against 33 Foods, Inc. d/b/a Taco Bell and R.G. T. Management, Inc., d/b/a / Taco Bell. Taco Bell filed a motion for summary judgment, or alternatively, a motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion for summary judgment, and the Bernards appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Bernards argue that Taco Bell breached its duty to keep the premises reasonably safe by not placing a mat inside the entrance and by not warning Brenda of the danger of the wet floor. Proof merely of the occurrence of a fall on a floor within a business's premises is insufficient to show negligence on the part of the proprietor. Here, the record does not contain any evidence placing in dispute the issue of whether a dangerous condition existed on Taco Bell's premises on the day of Brenda’s fall. The Bernards have only proven that Brenda, wearing wet shoes, fell in Taco Bell and that prior to the fall, it had been raining on the outside. The failure to have mats on the floor is irrelevant to a premises owner’s possible negligence unless there is evidence that injury occurred because of some substance on the floor that mats might have absorbed. Since the Bernards have offered no proof that Brenda’s fall occurred because of some substance on the floor which might have been absorbed by mats, Taco Bell's failure to follow its policies regarding placement of floor mats and wet-floor signs is irrelevant. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
