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
- 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.
- 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.