John Renner v. Retzer Resources, Inc.
236 So.3d 810 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Summary judgment is improper in a premises liability case when the plaintiff presents sufficient evidence, such as eyewitness testimony, to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the property owner had actual or constructive knowledge of an alleged dangerous condition.
Facts:
- On August 13, 2012, seventy-six-year-old John Renner was a customer at a McDonald's restaurant in Winona, Mississippi.
- After getting items from the condiment station, Renner turned to walk back to his table.
- As he turned, Renner's left foot struck a protruding leg of a highchair, causing him to fall and sustain injuries to his face and shoulder.
- After the fall, Renner heard a McDonald's employee instruct another employee to move the highchair.
- An eyewitness, Greta Siegel, saw the fall and testified that the highchair's legs were obscured from view by a half-wall and protruded into the walkway.
- Siegel had previously seen other customers stumble over the same highchairs and had complained about their dangerous placement to McDonald's employees on several occasions prior to Renner's fall.
Procedural Posture:
- John Renner filed a lawsuit against McDonald's, Retzer Resources, Inc., and Velencia Hubbard in the Mississippi Circuit Court (trial court).
- The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Renner could not prove the elements of his claim.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case.
- Renner, as the plaintiff-appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff in a premises liability case create a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment by presenting eyewitness testimony that the property owner had actual or constructive knowledge of an allegedly dangerous condition?
Opinions:
Majority - Randolph, Presiding Justice
Yes. A plaintiff creates a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment by presenting such testimony. To prevail in a premises-liability case, an invitee must show the defendant was negligent, had actual knowledge of a dangerous condition, or had constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition. Renner provided sufficient evidence for a jury to find that McDonald's had actual or constructive knowledge. The testimony of eyewitness Greta Siegel, who stated she had repeatedly warned McDonald's employees about the dangerously placed highchairs after seeing others stumble, directly created a question of fact as to the defendant's knowledge. The trial court erred by supplanting the facts in the record with its own opinion that highchairs are a 'normal' condition in a restaurant, a determination that is the proper role of a jury. Because Renner's evidence created triable issues of fact, summary judgment was inappropriate.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the principle that summary judgment should be denied when there are genuine disputes over material facts, particularly in negligence actions where questions of knowledge and reasonableness are central. The decision highlights the critical role of lay witness testimony in establishing a defendant's actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition. By reversing the trial court, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed that a judge's function is not to weigh evidence or resolve factual conflicts, but to determine if such conflicts exist for a jury to resolve. The opinion also serves as a reminder of the potential for a spoliation inference instruction when evidence, such as surveillance video, is lost or destroyed, even through negligence.
Unlock the full brief for John Renner v. Retzer Resources, Inc.