Title: Foldes v. Hancock Bank

State: mississippi

Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court

Document:

554 So. 2d 319 (1989) Opal FOLDES v. HANCOCK BANK. No. 07-CA-58946. Supreme Court of Mississippi. December 6, 1989. *320 Thomas D. Berry, Jr., Gulfport, for appellant. Stanford E. Morse, Jr., White & Morse, Gulfport, for appellee. Before ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., and PRATHER and SULLIVAN, JJ. ROY NOBLE LEE, Chief Justice, for the Court: Opal Foldes filed suit in the Circuit Court of Harrison County, Mississippi, against the Hancock Bank (Bank) seeking damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained on the Bank's property when she tripped/slipped and fell while making a deposit in the night depository box. At the completion of discovery, the lower court sustained the Bank's motion for summary judgment, and Mrs. Foldes has appealed to this Court. In April, 1984, appellant worked at the Holiday Inn in Biloxi as a night auditor. On April 12, she got off work at 7:00 a.m., and, having received her paycheck that morning, she stopped at the Mississippi City branch of the Hancock Bank to deposit her check in the night depository. The night depository is situated on the side of the bank where customers can park directly in front of it, get out and make their deposits. Foldes parked, exited her car and walked toward the depository. There was a yellow curb several inches high which separates the parking lot and the area nearest the building. On the other side of the curb was a concrete slab which extends for about two (2) feet from the building towards the parking lot and was directly under the night depository. The concrete slab was about an inch and a half or two inches lower than the top of the curb. Between the curb and the concrete slab was about a two or three inch space where the slab did not quite meet the curb. Near the night deposit was a window unit air conditioner, which was running with water dripping onto the concrete slab. There was also "green stuff" or algae which had collected on the slab. Appellant fell, claiming that the unsafe condition of the curb and walk caused her to trip/slip, and sustain personal injuries. The sole error assigned on this appeal is that the lower court erred in sustaining appellee's motion for summary judgment. The principle is now elementary that, on motion for summary judgment, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant and that party is given the benefit of every reasonable doubt as to whether or not a genuine issue of fact exists. If such occurs, then the motion for summary judgment must be denied. Brown v. Credit Center, Inc., 444 So. 2d 358 (Miss. 1983). In Clark v. Moore Memorial United Methodist Church, 538 So. 2d 760 (Miss. 1989), in discussing grants and denials of summary judgments, the Court said: 538 So. 2d at 762. The record reflects interrogatories, depositions and answers thereto, and an affidavit executed by Foldes. The Bank contends that Foldes, in her affidavit in opposition to summary judgment, stated a different version of the facts, which contradicted that given in her deposition and argues that "where there is a discrepancy between facts in an affidavit and deposition testimony, the affidavit must explain such discrepancy." Miller v. A.H. Robbins Co., Inc., 766 F.2d 1102 (7th Cir.1985); Camfield Tires Inc. v. Michelin Tire Corp., 719 F.2d 1361 (8th Cir.1983). In Albertson v. T.J. Stevenson & Co., Inc., 749 F.2d 223 (5th Cir.1984) the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated: 749 F.2d at 228. The record reflects the following with reference to the issue: (1) Interrogatory No. 2 submitted to Foldes and the answer dated June 21, 1985, follow: (2) On April 14, 1986, Foldes' deposition was taken. The following questions were submitted to Foldes, and answers given: (3) On December 3, 1987, Foldes executed an affidavit in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, part of which follows: It is obvious the interrogatories, deposition and affidavit relied upon by Foldes in opposition to the motion for summary judgment are not contradictory, but, considered together, are sufficient to require denial of the motion for summary judgment. The Bank cites and relies upon Kroger, Inc. v. Ware, 512 So. 2d 1281 (Miss. 1987), for the proposition that the condition at the Bank was open and obvious and that summary judgment for the Bank was required. However, the element of a defective air conditioner and slippery and dangerous algae on the walk was absent from the Kroger case and distinguishes it from the case at bar. We are of the opinion that, upon the record before us, the motion for summary judgment should have been denied and the full facts should have been developed in a trial on the merits. Therefore, the judgment of the lower court is reversed and the cause is remanded for trial. REVERSED AND REMANDED. HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, PITTMAN and BLASS, JJ., concur. ANDERSON, J., not participating.