## Facts

- T. B. Wilkins visited a hotel owned by Kramer Service, Inc. to meet a guest in the guest’s room.
- As Wilkins left and opened the door in an ordinary manner, a broken piece of glass from the transom above the door fell and struck his head, causing multiple wounds, including a cut on his temple.
- The transom glass was cracked or broken for a sufficient time to charge the hotel with notice of the dangerous condition, and the hotel did not repair it despite being informed.
- The temple wound failed to heal; about two years later, Wilkins was diagnosed with skin cancer at the same location.
- Wilkins sought damages for both the initial injury and the subsequent cancer.
- Medical testimony conflicted: one physician said trauma could possibly cause such cancer but characterized it as rare (about 1 in 100), while another physician denied any causal connection.
- The defendant requested an instruction excluding cancer-related harm from the damages calculation; the trial court refused, and the jury awarded \$20,000.

## Issues

1. Whether the hotel was negligent and liable to a business invitee injured by falling transom glass where the defective condition existed long enough to impute notice and make injury foreseeable.
2. Whether damages for later-developed skin cancer could be submitted to the jury when expert testimony established, at most, a mere possibility (not a probability) that the trauma caused the cancer, and whether refusal of a limiting instruction was reversible error.

## Decision

- The court affirmed liability for the initial head injury, holding the hotel could be charged with notice of the unrepaired defective transom and should have foreseen the risk of injury from falling glass.
- The court reversed and remanded on damages, holding the evidence was insufficient to permit the jury to award damages for cancer or prolonged suffering attributable to it.
- The trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury to exclude cancer-related damages was reversible error because the verdict amount was likely driven by the improper cancer element.

## Legal Principles

- Premises liability may be imposed where a dangerous condition exists for a sufficient time to charge the premises operator with notice and the risk is foreseeable to a reasonably prudent operator.
- In negligence actions, coexistence of negligence and injury does not establish liability; the plaintiff must prove causation, and proof of mere possibility is insufficient.
- Temporal sequence alone is not proof of causation; post hoc reasoning cannot substitute for evidence of a causal connection.
- When the causal question is beyond common knowledge, expert medical testimony governs; a verdict cannot rest on speculation where experts show no probability of causation.
- A defendant is entitled to an instruction excluding a claimed damage element when the evidence does not legally support submitting that element to the jury.

## Conclusion

The court held the hotel liable for injuries from falling transom glass due to an unrepaired defect with imputable notice, but it barred cancer-related damages because the medical proof did not establish that the trauma probably caused the cancer, requiring reversal and remand limited to damages.


Kramer Serv., Inc. v. Wilkins, 186 So. 625 (Miss. 1939)