Elston v. Gold Strike Casino Resort


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2003-CA-02584-COA
Linked Case(s): 2003-CT-02584-SCT2003-CA-02584-COA
Oral Argument: 09-29-2004
 

 

* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users).


Court of Appeals: Opinion Date: 02-15-2005
Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J.
Holding: REVERSED AND REMANDED-

Additional Case Information: Topic: Personal injury - Premises liability - Reasonably safe condition - Constructive knowledge
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., BRIDGES AND LEE, P.JJ., IRVING AND ISHEE, JJ.,
Dissenting Author : GRIFFIS, J.,
Dissent Joined By : MYERS AND BARNES, JJ.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 08-18-2003
Appealed from: TUNICA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Al Smith
Disposition: DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: LINDA ELSTON AND DANNY ELSTON




SARA BAILEY RUSSO DANIEL M. CZAMANSKE



 

Appellee: CIRCUS CIRCUS MISSISSIPPI, INC. D/B/A GOLD STRIKE CASINO RESORT AND CIRCUS CIRCUS ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A GOLD STRIKE CASINO JOHN RAMSEY MCCARROLL ANDREA DALLAS MCNEIL EUGENIA G. MCGOWN  

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 - Reasonably safe condition - Constructive knowledge

Summary of the Facts: Linda Elston was walking in the lobby of the Gold Strike Casino in Tunica when she slipped in a puddle of water, next to some live plants. Elston and her husband sued Gold Strike for her injuries, alleging that Gold Strike created an unreasonably dangerous condition by leaving water on the floor, or alternatively, that the water was left on the floor for a sufficient period of time as to give Gold Strike constructive knowledge of the water on the floor. The court granted Gold Strike’s motion for summary judgment, and the Elstons appeal.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: For a plaintiff to recover in a slip-and-fall case, he must show a negligent act by the defendant caused the plaintiff’s injury; the defendant had actual knowledge of a dangerous condition; or a dangerous condition existed for a sufficient amount of time to establish constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition. To prove that Gold Strike maintained its premises in a reasonably safe condition, Gold Strike’s guest service manager testified as to the procedures in place to maintain the lobby area of the hotel. Even though the procedures Gold Strike uses to maintain its lobby are adequate to keep the premises in a safe condition, these procedures do not necessarily establish that the lobby was in a reasonably safe condition on the day of the accident. On the day of the accident, no one could testify as to the last time Gold Strike’s employees inspected the lobby. The guest services manager was not working at the casino on the day of the fall and had no personal knowledge of whether or not the internal maintenance employees actually performed the inspections. For this reason, a question of fact exists for the jury whether the presence of water on the floor violated Gold Strike’s duty to keep its premises in a reasonably safe condition. While Gold Strike argues that it is speculative at best to claim that the water Elston slipped on came from the plants, she fell in the immediate vicinity of the plants, the casino could not identify any other possible source of water other than from the plants, and the plants are normally watered on Thursdays which is the day the accident occurred. To establish a negligence claim under a constructive knowledge theory, proof of the water’s presence on the floor for a sufficient period of time is required. The Elstons have presented more than a scintilla of evidence showing that the water had been on the floor for at least a few hours. Elston’s fall occurred between 1:45 p.m. and 2:45 p.m. The plants were usually watered some time between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. This evidence can allow a jury to reasonably infer that the water had been on the floor for a sufficient period of time to establish that Gold Strike should have known the water was on the floor. In addition, the Elstons have presented evidence showing that Gold Strike should have seen the puddle of water even if the water had been on the floor for a short period of time. Because the Elstons presented enough evidence to show that there are genuine issues of material fact regarding the liability of the defendant, the case is reversed and remanded.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court