I N T H E C O UR T O F APPEA LS O F TH E STAT E O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO . 2 0 1 3 - CA - 0 0 2 6 6 - CO A V I R G I N I A W . C A SE AP P EL LA NT
v. BOAR D O F S UPERVI S OR S OF LAUDER DALE COUNT Y AND L AUDE RDAL E C OUNT Y, M I SS I SS I PPI APP ELLEE S

D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 01/ 11/ 2013 TRI AL J UDG E: HON . LE S TE R F . W I LL I AM S ON J R. CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: LAUDERDALE COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L A N T : W IL L IA M E . R E A D Y J R . HEN RY P. PATE AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E S : J . RI CH AR D B AR RY JO H N G O R D O N R O A C H III NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY T R IA L C O U R T D IS P O S IT IO N : G R A N T E D S U M M A R Y JU D G M E N T IN FAV OR OF A PP ELLEES D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 10/ 28/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E I R V I N G , P . J. , I SH E E , M A X W E L L A N D JA M E S, JJ. I S HEE, J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1 . In A p ril 2 0 1 0 , V irg inia W
. C ase w as em p loy ed as an an im a l-c o n tro l o ffic e r in M er i di an, M i s s i s s i ppi , w hen s he s l i pped and f el l on a r amp w hi l e exi t i ng herof f i ce bui l di ng. S h e late r su e d th e B o a rd o f S u p e rv iso rs o f L a u d e rd a le C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i, an d L a u d e rd a le C ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi ( col l ect i vel y “the county”) — the ent i t i es r es pons i bl e f orm ai nt ai ni ng the b u il d ing , inclu d ing th e ram p . T h e co u n ty asse rt ed im m u n ity u n d er the M issi ssipp i T o rt C l ai m s A ct( M T C A ) and f i l ed a mot i on f

ors um m ary j udgm ent . A f t era hea r i ng on t he

### 2

m at t er, the L aud erdal e C ou nty C i rcui tC ou rtgrant ed the m o ti o n , and C ase now app eal s. F i n d i n g n o e r r o r , we a f f i r m. S TATEM ENT OF FACTS ¶2. C as e w as hi r ed as a n ani m al
- contr ol of f i cerappr oxi m at el y tw o orthr ee w eeks pr i or t o herf al l
. A ccor di ng t o hert es t i m ony, dur i ng thatt i m e, C as e ent er ed and e xi t ed herof f i ce bui l di ng b y w a y of

the met a l e xi tr a mp i n qu e s t i on a bo uta d oz e n t i mes a d a y w i t hout i nci dent
. T he re cor d r ef l ect s that , atthe t i m e of C as e’ s f al l , the r amp had exi s t ed att he b u ild in g fo r a t le a s t te n y e a rs . ¶3. O n A pr i l 9, 2010, C as e and f el l ow ani m al
- contr ol of f i cer H os es R ockett e J r . l ef tt he bui l di ng. A ccor di ng t o R ockett e’ s a f f i davi t , he w al ked dow n the r amp t o the exi tdooratt he end of the r amp and hel d the dooropen t o w ai tf orC as e t o fol l ow h i m . H e r eca l l ed that
w hi l e he w as hol di ng the dooropen f orher , C as e w al ked ont o the r amp and pl ace d herf eet
s i de by s i de. H e s t at ed: “She ac t ed as i f she w er e goi ng t o sl i de dow n t he r amp. She had a

‘ R out e 44’ s i zed dr i nk f r om Soni c i n he rha nd. B oth of he rf eets l i pped f

r om unde rneath her and [ s he f

el l
. ] ” C as e den i es t hats he att empt ed t o s l i de dow n the r amp. R egar dl es s , s he cl ai m s thatthe f

al l caus ed hert o l os e cons ci ous nes s , cr ack he rt eeth, and i nj ur e herback a nd
n e c k
. ¶4. T es t i m ony f

r om Case , a s w el l a s othere m pl oyees w ho w or k i n the bui l di ng, i ndi cat es thatthe r amp can bec om e sl i ppery w hen w et . H ow ever , t he r ecor d r ef l ect s thaton the day i n que s t i on, the w eatherc ondi t i ons w er e s unny a nd dry. T he r ecor d a l s o s how s thatther e had notbeen a ny r ai n orotherw etcondi t i ons i n the ar ea i n the day ors o bef or e C as e’ s f

al l that
w o u ld h a v e m a d e th e ra m p s lip p e ry .

### 3

¶5. N onethel es s , on O ct ober21, 2011, C as e s ued the co un ty clai m i ng the ram p con st i tute d a dange r ous condi t i on and t hatt he county fa i l ed t o adequat el y w arn or pr ot ectheragai ns tt he haza r d. T he county s oon f i l ed a mot i on fors um m ary j udgm entas s ert i ng governm ent al i m m uni ty underthe M T C A . Fol l ow i ng a hea r i ng on the mat t er , the ci r cui tcourti s s ued a l engthy anal ys i s , ul t i m at el y concl udi ng thatthe r amp di d notcr eat e a da nger ous condi t i on dur i ng dry w eatherand thatthe condi t i on o f the r amp on t he day of the i nci dentw as open and obvi ous t o C as e. H ence , the mot i on f ors um m ary j udgm entw as gr ant ed. DI S CU S S I ON ¶6 . S u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is a p p ro p ria te “ if th e p lea d in g s, d e p o sitio n s, a n sw e rs to interrog atories[, ] an d ad m issi o n s on fi le, tog ethe r w ith the a ffi d av it s, if an y , sh o w that there i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o any m at er i al fa ctand t hatt he m ovi ng party i s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm ent
as a mat t erof

l aw . ” M . R . C . P. 5 6(c)
. A d e novo s t andar d of r evi ew i s appl i ed t o the gr ant
o f a m o tio n fo r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. K i lhul l en v. Kans as C i t y S. Ry. , 8 So. 3d 168, 174 ( ¶14) ( M i s s . 2009)
. W hen revi ew i ng s uch a mot i on, “the evi dence m us tbe vi ew ed i n the l i ght
m os tf avor abl e t o t he party a gai ns tw hom the m ot i on has been made. ” I d. ( quot i ng D a n iels
v. GN B I nc. , 6 29 S o. 2d 59 5, 59 9 (M i ss. 19 93 ))
. H ow ever, the o pp osi ng party “m ay n ot r est upon the mer e al l egat i ons ordeni al s of hi s pl eadi ngs , buth i s r es pons e, by af f i davi t s oras otherw i s e pr ovi ded i n thi s rul e, m us ts etf or th s peci f

i c f act s show i ng thatther e i s a genui ne issue for tri al. ” M . R . C . P . 5 6 (e). ¶7 . C as e’ s ne gl i ge nc e a c t i on a ga i ns tthe c ou nty i s g ov e rne d by the p r ovi s i ons of t he M T C A . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 46- 7 ( R ev. 2012)
. The M T C A i s the exc l us i ve r emedy fo r c la im s a g a in s t g o v e rn m e n ta l e n tit ie s a n d th e ire m p lo y e e s . I d. It p ro v id e s s p e c ific

### 4

exempt i ons f

r om t or tl i abi l i ty. M i s s . Code A nn. § 11- 46- 9 ( R ev. 2012)
. Sect i on 1 1-46- 9( 1) ( v) di ct at es the f

ol l ow i ng: A governm ent al ent i ty and i t s empl oyees act i ng w i thi n the cour s e and s cope of thei rempl oym entordut i es s hal l notbe l i abl e f orany cl ai m . . . [ a] r i s i ng out of an i nj ury caus ed by a dange r ous condi t i on on pr operty of the governm ent al ent i ty thatw as no tcaus ed by the negl i gentorotherw r ongf ul conductof

an e m p lo y e e o f th e g o v e rn m e n tal e n tity o r o f w h ich th e g o v e rn m e n tal e n tity d id n o t h a v e n o tice , eith e r a c tu a l o r c o n stru c tiv e , an d a d e q u a te o p p o rtu n ity to p ro tec t o r w a rn a g a in st; p ro v id e d , h o w e v e r, th a t a g o v e rn m e n tal e n tity sh a ll notbe l i abl e f

orthe f ai l ur e t o w arn of a dange r ous condi t i on w hi ch i s obvi ous to o n e e x e rc is in g d u e c a re . ¶8 . O uri nt e rpr e t a t i on o f s e c t i on 1 1- 46
- 9( 1) ( v) i s wel l s et t l ed. I n How ard v. C i t y of B i l oxi , 943 So. 2d 751, 754 ( ¶5) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2006) , w e s t at ed thati n or derf ora cl ai m ant t o el ude a gove r nm ent al ent i ty’ s i nvocat i on of i m m uni ty i n a cas e s uch as thi s , the cl ai m ant
m u st s h o w th a t: ( 1) an i nj ury w as s uf f er ed; ( 2) the i nj ury w as caus ed by a da nger ous condi t i on on the pr operty of [ the governm ent al ent i ty] caus ed by the [ negl i gence ] orotherw r ongf ul conductof

a [ governm ent al ] empl oyee; ( 3) the [ governm entent i ty] had ei theractual orcons truct i ve not i ce of the d e fe c t; ( 4) t he [ go ve r nmen t a l e nt i ty] ha d a n a de qu a t e op po r tun i ty t o p r ot e c tor w arn of thi s def ect ; and ( 5) the condi t i on w as notopen and obvi ous t o one exe r ci s i ng due ca r e. ¶9. H er e, C as e pr es ent s adequa t e evi dence t hatshe s uf f er ed an i nj ury due t o herf al l on the ra m p . T h is is u n co n test ed
. C ase asse rt s tha t th e fa ll w as c au sed b y the s li p p ery n ature of the r amp i t s el f

. A ccor di ngl y, s he mustf i r s tpr ove thatthe r amp const i tut es a dange r ous c o n d itio n .

### 5

¶ 1 0 . T h e re c o rd in d ica tes tha t th e co u n ty k n e w the ram p co u ld b e slip p e ry , an d p o ten tially danger ous , w hen i tw as w et . Sever al empl oyees atthe bu i l di ng s t at ed thatthey had f al l en o n th e ra m p w h e n w e a th e r c o n d iti o n s w e re d a m p a n d w a ter fro m o u tsid e w a s tra c k e d o n to the r amp, ther eby m aking its l i ppery. N onethel es s , ther e i s no evi dence i n the r ecor d t hat
co n d it ion s ex ist ed that w o u ld h av e m ad e the ram p da n g ero u s w h en C ase fell o n it
. R athe r, the w eathercondi t i ons w er e s unny and dry w i t h no pri orr ai nf al l thatw oul d have ha d a bear i ng on the day i n ques t i on. T he r ecor d i s al s o voi d of any i ndi cat i on t hatt he r amp w as
w etf r om anothersour ce othert han w eathercondi t i ons . L i kew i s e, C as e adm i t s t hats he does
no tkn ow w hat cau sed h er t o fal l , bu trel i es on h er bar e assert i on s that the ram p it sel f w as, f orunknow n r eas ons , “s l i ck. ” H ow ever , s he has no e vi dence t o s uppor the rcont ent i on t hat the ra m p w as d an g ero u sly sli p p ery o ther tha n the fa ll it self. ¶11. A ddi t i onal l y, C as e t es t i f i ed that s he had tr aver s ed the r amp up t o a dozen t i m es a day f orthe tw o orthr ee w eeks pr i ort o he rf al l w i thouti nci dent
. M or eover , R ockett e s t at ed that h e w alke d d o w n the ram p d ir ec tl y b efo re C ase w ith o u t f all ing
. G iven the e v iden ce b efo re
u s, w e c a n n o t sa y th a t th e ra m p itse lf c o n stitu ted a d a n g e ro u s c o n d iti o n a t th e tim e C a se fe ll. T h is is s u e is w ith o u t m e ri t. ¶ 1 2 . H e n c e , C a se h a s fa iled to o v e rc o m e th e c o u n ty ’s a ss e rtio n o f im m u n ity . F in d in g th is t o be di s pos i t i ve, w e dec l i ne t o addr es s Case ’ s a r gum entthatthe ci r cui tcourterr ed i n f i ndi ng the condi t i on of

the r amp t o be open a nd obvi ous . Ins t ead, w e af f i r m the ci r cui tcourt ’ s gr ant of s um m ary j udgm entt o t he county. ¶ 1 3 . T H E JU D G M E N T O F T H E L A U D E R D A L E C O U N T Y C IR C U IT C O U R T IS AF F I RMED . AL L CO S T S OF T HI S AP P EA L AR E AS S E S S E D T O T HE APP ELLANT.

### 6

LEE, C. J . , I RVI NG AN D G RI FF I S , P. J J . , BAR NES , CAR LTON, M AXW ELL A N D F A IR , JJ . , C O N C U R . J A M E S , J. , C O N C U R S IN P A R T A N D D ISS E N T S IN P AR T W I T HOU T S E P AR AT E W RI T T E N O P I NI ON. RO B E RT S , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .