## Facts

- John Renner, age 76, visited a McDonald’s in Winona, Mississippi, operated by Retzer Resources, Inc., where Velencia Hubbard was the manager.
- After ordering, Renner walked to the condiment station; as he turned back toward his table, his left foot struck a protruding leg of a highchair and he fell, injuring his face and left shoulder.
- Renner testified he heard an employee comment after the fall that the highchair should be moved.
- A regular customer, Greta Siegel, testified highchairs were routinely stored behind a half wall near the condiment station and that chair legs routinely protruded into the walkway; patrons had bumped into them before.
- Siegel also testified she complained multiple times to management, including to Hubbard, about the placement of the highchairs and the protruding legs.
- Hubbard acknowledged highchairs were regularly stored behind the half wall and believed the location was appropriate.
- Renner sued (about 2.5 years later) Retzer and Hubbard; during discovery, defendants asserted incident video footage no longer existed.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment was improper because evidence created jury questions on the elements of an invitee premises-liability claim, including dangerous condition, notice, and causation.
2. Whether the loss or destruction of incident video evidence barred summary judgment or otherwise affected the disposition at the summary-judgment stage.

## Decision

- Reversed the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment to Retzer and Hubbard and remanded for further proceedings.
- Held that the “normal and usual” character of an item (a highchair) does not resolve whether its particular placement and condition created an unreasonably dangerous condition.
- Concluded genuine disputes existed as to whether the protruding highchair leg near the condiment station was a dangerous condition and whether the hazard was open and obvious.
- Found evidence (including testimony about prior bumps and repeated complaints to management) sufficient to create a fact dispute on actual or constructive knowledge.
- Declined to treat the missing video as dispositive at summary judgment; spoliation-related questions and any instruction were better addressed as the record developed at trial.
- Determined the trial court improperly weighed evidence and drew inferences against the nonmovant rather than viewing the record in the light most favorable to Renner.

## Legal Principles

- A business owner owes an invitee a duty to keep premises reasonably safe and to warn of hidden dangers not in plain and open view.
- An invitee premises-liability claim commonly turns on proof of a dangerous condition, the defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge, and causation.
- Whether a condition is unreasonably dangerous, whether a hazard is open and obvious, and whether the defendant had notice are frequently jury questions when supported by competing evidence.
- At summary judgment, courts must not resolve credibility disputes or weigh evidence; reasonable inferences must be drawn for the nonmoving party.
- Spoliation may support a jury instruction if supported by proof of intentional or negligent destruction of relevant evidence, but it does not automatically decide the merits at summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The court held that evidence about the highchair’s placement, the foreseeability of customers encountering protruding legs, and prior complaints created genuine disputes of material fact on dangerousness, openness/obviousness, and notice; summary judgment was therefore reversed and the case was remanded for trial-level proceedings, including any further development of spoliation issues.


Renner v. Retzer Res., Inc., 236 So. 3d 810 (Miss. 2017)