Blanton v. Gardner's Supermarket, Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-00020-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-00020-COA |
|
| Oral Argument: | 02-23-2010 | |
* 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 Link Opinion Date: 06-15-2010 Opinion Author: Maxwell, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Potentially dangerous natural condition - Duty to invitee - Actual notice Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Barnes and Carlton, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-09-2008 Appealed from: Alcorn County Circuit Court Judge: Paul S. Funderburk Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED TO DEFENDANT Case Number: CV07-000642FA |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Charles Blanton |
NICHOLAS RYAN BAIN, GREG E. BEARD |
|
|
| Appellee: | Gardner's Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Roger's Supermarket | H. RICHMOND CULP 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 - Potentially dangerous natural condition - Duty to invitee - Actual notice |
| Summary of the Facts: | After falling on accumulated ice and snow in a grocery store parking lot, Charles Blanton filed a premises liability action against Gardner’s Supermarket d/b/a Roger’s Supermarket. Roger’s claimed Blanton’s injuries were caused by a natural condition in a remote area of the premises and moved for summary judgment, which the circuit court granted. Blanton appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Blanton argues that an artificial condition caused water to improperly drain, puddle and freeze in the area of his fall and that the parking lot’s defective design led to his injury. When addressing potentially dangerous natural conditions, Mississippi courts look at the natural condition in terms of what the customer can normally encounter or expect, coupled with an examination of whether the condition is unusual or usual in order to determine whether a jury question exists. Where the fall is due to a natural condition in a remote area and the defendant knows and appreciates the danger, there is no jury question as to the defendant’s negligence. In order to show an artificial condition existed, a plaintiff must prove the defendant created or aggravated the hazard, caused the hazard to be substantially more dangerous than it would have been in its natural state, and the defendant knew or should have known of the condition. Even the most ably constructed and carefully maintained parking lot will probably contain minor indentations in which naturally occurring water can accumulate and freeze; naturally occurring water which naturally concentrates in such a lot is still considered a natural condition. In this case, the store employee testified a drain exists near a depression in the parking lot, but he did not testify that normal rainfall causes water to accumulate there. Furthermore, Blanton presented no evidence to show Roger’s committed an affirmative act or in any way created or aggravated the terrain in the area of his fall. Thus, there is no proof Roger’s caused this area to be any more perilous than the rest of the parking lot. Also, Blanton’s injury resulted from a natural condition in a remote location in the store’s parking lot. Though Blanton contends he did not appreciate the condition leading to his fall, it is undisputed that Roger’s entire parking lot was exposed to precipitation and freezing temperatures which covered much of Corinth in snow and ice. Blanton and his wife had already delivered newspapers across the city in these conditions. Sleet, slush and ice are usual winter conditions, which individuals can expect to encounter. It is undisputed that these conditions were both prevalent and noticed by Blanton as he traversed Roger’s parking lot to enter the store and later return to his vehicle. Accordingly, Blanton certainly appreciated and had knowledge of the general natural wintry conditions which contributed to his fall. Stores such as Roger’s owe a duty to an invitee to exercise reasonable or ordinary care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition or warn of dangerous conditions not readily apparent, which owner or occupant knows of, or should know of, in the exercise of reasonable care. However, business operators are not insurers against all injuries. In order to succeed on his premises liability claim, Blanton 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. Blanton argues Roger’s had actual knowledge that a dangerous artificial condition existed in the lot, which caused water to accumulate and ultimately freeze. Not only is prior notice lacking, Blanton offers nothing to show that on the day of his fall, Roger’s had actual knowledge water had pooled and frozen in that location. Furthermore, he provides no testimony about prior falls in the area, nor does he show the alleged dangerous artificial condition existed long enough to impute constructive knowledge to Roger’s. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
