Stanley v. Boyd Tunica, Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-00281-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-00281-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-02-2010 Opinion Author: Maxwell, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Premises liability - Dangerous condition - Res ipsa loquitur Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Carlton, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-16-2009 Appealed from: TUNICA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Al Smith Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED FOR DEFENDANT Case Number: 2005-0148 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | BILL STANLEY |
DANA J. SWAN |
|
|
| Appellee: | BOYD TUNICA, INC. D/B/A SAM’S TOWN HOTEL AND GAMBLING HALL | RICHARD C. WILLIAMS, JR. | ||
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 - Dangerous condition - Res ipsa loquitur |
| Summary of the Facts: | Bill Stanley, a hotel guest at Sam’s Town Casino, slipped on the hotel shower mat. He filed an action against Boyd Tunica, Inc. d/b/a Sam’s Town Hotel and Gambling Hall, alleging he had suffered injuries to his arm and head caused by Boyd’s negligence. Boyd admitted Stanley was a business invitee of the hotel but denied breaching any duty owed to Stanley. Boyd moved for summary judgment, which was granted. Stanley appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Stanley argues that a material issue of fact exists regarding Boyd’s notice of an alleged dangerous condition in the bathroom and that he is not required to prove notice because Boyd was in exclusive control of the room. In order to succeed on his premises-liability claim, Stanley must show either a negligent act by the defendant caused the plaintiff’s injury; or, the defendant had actual knowledge of a dangerous condition, but failed to warn the plaintiff of the danger; or, the dangerous condition remained long enough to impute constructive knowledge to the defendant. A property owner cannot be found liable for the plaintiff's injury where no dangerous condition exists. Stanley offered no proof of a negligent act on the part of Boyd or that Boyd had actual knowledge of a dangerous condition. Further, because Stanley fails to offer any scintilla of evidence of a dangerous condition, he is unable to prove constructive notice based upon the amount of time the alleged condition existed. The Stanleys had control of the room immediately prior to the fall, and Stanley’s wife admitted using the shower only a short time before Stanley. Thus, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable as a matter of law. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
