Haggard v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-CA-01499-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 11-29-2011
Opinion Author: Russell, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Personal injury - Premises liability - Business invitee - Slip and fall - Dangerous condition - Actual knowledge - Constructive knowledge
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Myers, J.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 07-20-2010
Appealed from: Washington County Circuit Court
Judge: Richard Smith
Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED IN FAVOR OF WAL-MART
Case Number: 2009-0220 CI

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Dorothy Haggard




YANCY B. BURNS



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • Appellee: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. R. BRITTAIN VIRDEN  

    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 - Business invitee - Slip and fall - Dangerous condition - Actual knowledge - Constructive knowledge

    Summary of the Facts: Dorothy Haggard fell while shopping in a Wal-Mart store in Greenville. Haggard filed a complaint against Wal-Mart in the county court alleging negligence and premises liability. Wal-Mart filed a motion for summary judgment which the court granted. Haggard appealed to circuit court which affirmed. Haggard appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: It is undisputed that Haggard was a business invitee because she entered Wal-Mart in answer to the express or implied invitation of the owner or occupant for their mutual advantage. A business owner/operator owes to invitees the duty to keep the premises reasonably safe, and when not reasonably safe, to warn only where there is hidden danger or peril that is not in plain and open view. In a slip-and-fall case, the plaintiff must show one of the following to recover: a negligent act of the defendant caused her injury; the defendant had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition, but failed to warn the plaintiff; or the defendant should have known about the dangerous condition, in that the dangerous condition existed for a sufficient amount of time to impute constructive knowledge to the defendant. Haggard stated in her deposition there was no indication that anyone from Wal-Mart accidentally put the substance on the floor. She further admitted she did not know how the substance got on the floor. The manager on duty at the time of Haggard’s fall and another Wal-Mart employee stated that they had no knowledge of how the substance ended up on the floor or who was responsible for it being there. Thus, there is nothing in the record to indicate that a negligent act of Wal-Mart or its employees caused Haggard’s fall. Based on Haggard’s own testimony, there was no evidence of any actual knowledge on the part of Wal-Mart or its employees. Haggard’s main argument that Wal-Mart had actual or constructive knowledge of the clear substance on the floor is based upon affidavits of three customers. However, nothing is stated within these affidavits as to how long the substance had remained on the floor before Haggard fell, and no time frame is provided anywhere in the record. Moreover, Haggard was unable to provide the names of any of the alleged employees who were supposedly in the area. The affidavits from the three customers are conclusory in nature and, therefore, insufficient to defeat Wal-Mart’s motion for summary judgment in this case, particularly in light of the fact that Haggard was unable to establish any time frame to impute constructive knowledge to Wal-Mart.


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