Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 61029 Su m m ar y Cal endar

L A U R AL A S C O L A , I n d i v i d u a l l y , a n d a s S o l e H e i r a n d N e x t o f K i n t o N o r ma D al e M as s a, de c e as e d P l a i n ti ff - A p p ell a n t v. B A R D E N M I SS I SS I PP I G A M I N G LL C dba Fi t zge r al ds C as i no H ot el

- Tu ni c a; T U N I C AC O U N T YM I S S I S S I P P I ; T U N I C AC O U N T YS H E R I F F ’S D EP AR TM EN T, A di vi s i o n o f Tuni c a Count y, M S

D efen da n t s - A pp el l ees

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt fo r th e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i U SD C N o. 2: 06- C V

- 080

B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T an d H AY N E S , C i rcui t Ju dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * T h i s app ealconcern s the tr agic di sapp earan ce and even t u aldeath of N orm a M assa, a si xty- f i ve year- ol d w om an w h o suf fered f rom dem en t i a. M assa di s ap pe ar e d dur i ng a t r i p w i t h he r a s s i s t e d- l i vi ng fac i l i t y t o Fi t z ge r al d’ s Cas i no i n T u n i ca, M i ssi ssi pp i
. H er body w as d i scovered a pp roxi m atel y on e y ear l ater United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 5, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 61029

L ascol a initi ally sued seve ral members of th e Tunica CountySh eriff’s Department in 1 th eir in dividu al capaciti es . Th e di strict co urtdis mi sse d h erc laim s a g ain stth os e in dividu als , and La scolah as not appeal ed th at ruling . L ascol a also name d th e Tunica CountySh erif f ’s Department a s a defen dant
. She conceded to the trial c ourtth at the Sheriff’s Department is not a se parate governme ntal e ntity, making Tunica County , Mississippith e proper defen dant
. El even secon ds of the security tape were o mitted due to wh at defen danth as 2 characte riz ed as a recording error. La scola’s expertwas unab le to find anyba sis to conclude that th e loss of the eleven secon ds was intention al. L ascol a h as aban done d her argu ment that 2 i n a w ooded area som e t w o m i l es f rom t h e casi n o. L au ra L ascol a, t h e dau gh t er a nd s o l e he i r of

M a s s a , br o ug hts ui t ag a i ns t B a r d e n M i s s i s s i p p iG a m i ng , LLC d/b/ a Fi t zge r al d’ s C as i no H ot el

- Tu ni c a ( Fi t zge r al d’ s) and Tu ni c a C ount y, M i ssi ssi pp i( T u n i ca C ou n t y)

. Sh e asser t ed cl ai m s of neg l i g e n ce , gross 1
n egl i gen ce, an d i n t en t i on alinf l i ct i on of

em ot i on aldi st ress againstF i t zgeral d’ s. Ag a i n s tT u n i c a Co u n t y , L a s c o l a al l e ge d r e c kl e s s di s r e ga r d un de r t he M i s s i s s i ppi T ortC l ai m s A ct , i n t en t i on ali n f l i ct i o n o f em ot i on aldi st ress , an d vi ol ati on of M assa’ s c on st i t u t i on alri gh t s un der 42 U
. S

. C

. § 1983

. Th e di st ri ctcourtgran t ed
s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f F itz g e r a ld ’ s a n d T u n ic a C o u n ty
. L a s c o la a p p e a ls t h e den i alof

her rec kles s- di s r e ga r d c l ai m a gainstT u n i ca C ou n t y an d h er s i m pl ene gl i ge nc e a nd g r o s s - ne gl i ge nc e c l ai m s ag ai ns t Fi t z ge r al d’ s . For t he f o l l o w i ng r e a s o n s , w e A F F IR M
.

I . F A CT UA L A ND P ROC E DUR A L B A CK GRO UND N o r m a M a s s a re s id e d a t S t. P e te r M a n o r , a n a s s is te d -liv in gfa c ility in M em ph i s, T en n essee, un t i lher dea t h
. O n D ecem ber 1 3, 200 4, M assa em bark ed
on a bu s t ri p t o F i t zgeral d’ s C asi n o i n T u n i ca, M i ssi ssi pp iw i t h seventeen other
r e s id e n ts
. T h e b u s a r r i v e d a t F itz g e r a ld ’ s a t a p p r o x im a te ly 1 1 :0 0 a .m . A cc o rd in gto v id e o su rv e il la n ce fro m F itzg e ra ld ’ s s e cu rity ca m e ra s, M a ss a left t he c as i no ar ound 12: 26 p. m . and w ander ed ar ound t he r ear p a rk i n g l otby h e r s e lf. T h e s u r v e il la n c e v id e o s h o w s a s e c u r it y v e h ic le o w n e d b y F it z g e r a ld ’s ap pr o ac hi ng M as s a but , be c aus e o f a gl i t c h i n t he t ap e , i t i s unc l e arw he t he rt he
s e c u r i t y g u a r d s p o k e t o h e r . At a r o u n d 1 : 0 0 p . m . , M a s s a wa l k e d t o w ar d t he 2N o. 08- 61029

Fitzgeral d’s tampered with the security tapeand that she is entitl ed to aspoliation infe renc e. On appeal , shear gu es instea d th at the gap in t he r ecordingdemon strates that th e security gu ar d likely s p o ke with M a s s a a n d ob s e rve d th at s h e wa s di s o ri e nt e d a n d i n n e ed o f a ssi st ance . The parti es do not disputeth at the She riff’s Department policyrequiring twenty-fo ur 3 hours to elapse b eforesearch in g for amissin g adult doe s no t applyto indivi dual s with a m en tal disab ility. The policy states that if a personwitha mental di sabilityis report ed missing , a missing -person s repo rt shoul d becre ated and forwarded to the appropriateofficial s att h att ime . The primaryinve stigator , with the Sheriff’s approval, may theninitiate afullscalesearch effort. 3 T u n i ca R i ver P ark M u seum an d di sapp eared f rom t h e casi n o an d su rvei l l an ce v id e o . A t 3: 3 0 p.m . , the rem a i n i n g S t. P eter M a n or re siden ts b oa rd ed th e b u s to
r et urn hom e. W hen M as sa di d n otappear, the bus driverhad t he c as i no page he r . She di d notre s po nd. At 3: 45 p. m . , t he bus dep ar t e d f o r M e m phi s w i t ho ut M as sa . St

. P eter M a n ort hen not i f i ed Laura Lasc ol a, M as sa ’ s daughte r , t hat h e r m o th e r h a d fa ile d to b o a r d th e b u s o r re s p o n d to th e p a g e . L a s c o la i m m edi at el y l ef

therhom e i n M em phi s and dro ve t o Tu n i ca . A l ong t he w ay, L ascol a cal l ed F i t zgeral d ’ s se curi t y dep art m en t t o al ertt h em t h at her m ot h er w as m i s s i ng and s uf fe r e d f r o m a form of

de m e nt i a. La s c o l a al s o c al l e d t he T u n ica C o u n ty S h e riff’ s D e p a rtm e n t a n d in for m e d th e m of h e r m o th e r ’s di sapp earan ce, her di sabi l i t y, an d the factt h at s h e ha d p revi ou sl y w an dered away f r o m a fai r o nl y t o r e ap pe ars e ve n m i l e s f r o m he r o r i gi nall o c at i o n. Las c o l a ar r i ve d atFi t z ge r al d’ s a t 5 : 00 p. m . a nd m e t w i t h m e m be r s o f t he
c as i no ’ s s e c ur i t y t e am , a s w e l la s K at i e J o hns o n, a de put y s he r i f f f r o m t he T u n i ca C ou n t y S h eri f f ’ s D epa rt m en t
. T h ey searched F i t zgeral d’ s propert y f or M assa bu t di d not l ocat e h er. L ascol a asked t h e Sh eri f f ’ s D epa rt m en t t o condu ct
a fu l l -scale se a rch o f th e su rrou n d i n g a rea u sing do gs an d h eli cop ters. D ep u ty Sh er i f f Jo hnson dec l i ned t o do s o f or t w ent y- f

ourhour s, i nco r r ec t l y c i t i ng a dep art m en tpol i cy regardi n g m i ssi n g ad u l t s. Af u l l

- scal e searc h w as cond u ct ed 3 t he f ol l ow i ng da y a t 1 : 0 0 p. m . M as sa w as notl oc at ed. An ot hers ear c h w asN o. 08- 61029

Inh er d eposition, La s c ola state d th at a woman that shebelieve d was h er mo ther 4 call ed and left a me ssageseveralday s afte r sh e d is ap p eared. Thereis also evidence that Massa may have b oarde d anothe r b us todiffe rentar ea casinos a ndeventrave led back to Memphis at some point prio r to her death. I n reviewin g the district co urt’s grant of su mmary j u dgme nt, wedo n otr elyo nthis evid ence b ut n ot e th at itc all s intoqu es tionwh eth erMa ssa exhib ited any vi sibl e sign s of dementia or thatany negligencebyFitz ge rald’s orTunica County cau se d Ma ssa’sd eath
.

Bec auseof the time that h ad elapsedsince Ma ssa’s di sappearance, h er b odywas not 5 easily identifie d. It was not until January 12, 200 6, wh en Massa’ s d en t al reco rds were proc es se d, th at th e b odyl oc ate d inth e wo od s w a s p os itivelyi de ntifi eda s M a ssa’s

. 4 pe r f o r m e d b y t he She r i f f ’ s D e pa r t m e nto n Dec e m be r 1 8, 2 00 4, b utw i t ho ut
success. 4 O n Jan u ary 1, 200 6, a hu n t er di scovered M a ss a’ s r em ai n s i n a w ooded
ar e a ap pr o x i m a t e l yt wo mi l e s f r o m Fi t z ge r al d’ s . An au t o ps y w as pe r f o r m e d, b ut 5 t he doc t orw as unabl e t o de t er m i ne t he c ause of deat h and i ndi c at ed o nl y t hat M a ssa ’ s d ea th w a s “u n u su a l/ su sp i ci ou s. ” O n M a y 4 , 2 0 0 6 , L a s c o la , in d iv id u a lly a n d a s t h e s o le h e ira n d n e x t o f k in t o N or m a M as sa , f

i l ed s u i tagai nstFi t zge r al d’ s and T uni c a C ount y i n fede r al d is tr ic t c o u r t. L a s c o la a lle g e d th a t F itz g e r a ld ’ s w a s n e g lig e n t a n d g r o s s ly
ne gl i ge ntb y fai l i ng t o a s s i s tM as s a w he n s he w and e r e d i nt o t he c as i no pa r ki ng l ot. L a scola a rg u ed th a t T u n i ca C ou n ty reck l ess l y disreg a rd ed M a ssa ’ s sa fety byr e f us i ng t o i ni t i at e a n i m m e di at e f ul l

- s c al e s earch forM as s a af t e rs he d isa p p e a re d
. L a sc o la a lso a ss e rte d cla im s a g a inst T u n i ca C ou n t y f or deprivati on of M as sa ’ s c ons ti tu ti on alr i ght s und er42 U
. S. C

. § 1983 and f ori nt ent i onal in flic tio n o f e m o tio n a l d is tr e s s . T h e defen da n t s m oved forsum m ary j u dg m en t on allcoun t s. Th e di st ri ct
c o u r t fo u n d th a tn o g e n u in e is s u e o f m a t e r ia l fa c t r e m a in e d o n L a s c o la ’s
ne gl i g e n c e , o t h e r t o r t , a n d § 1 9 8 3 c l a i m s a n d g r a n t e d t h e d e fe n d a n t s ’mot i o ns f or s u m m ary j u dg m en t
. Th e di s t r i c tc o ur ta l s o c on cl u ded t h at La scol a’ s r eckl essdi sregard cl ai m againstT u n i ca C ou n t y w as b arred by the st atute of l i m i t ati on s.N o. 08- 61029

5 Las c o l a no w a ppe al s o nl y t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s gr anto f s um m ar y j udg m e nt
on h er si m pl e a n d gross- n egl i gen ce cl ai m s ag ai n stF i t zgeral d’ s an d h er r eckl essd is r e g a r d cla im a g a in s t T u n ic a C o u n ty
. I I . S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW In revi ew i n g t h e d i st ri ctcou rt ’ s ru l i n g i n this d i versi t y act i on , t h i s c ou rt
a p p lie s M is s is s ip p i s u b s ta n tiv e la w . F o ra d o ri v
. Ha rr is , 52 3 F
. 3 d 47 7 , 48 6 ( 5 th C i r . 2008) ( c i t i ng Eri e R
. C o. v . Tompk i ns , 3 0 4 U. S

. 6 4 ( 1 9 3 8 ) )

. We r e v i e w a g r a n t of s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t d e n o v o . N
. A m . S pe c i al ty I

ns . Co. v . Roy alSur

pl us L i n es Ins. Co. , 541 F
. 3d 552 , 555 ( 5th C i r. 200 8)

. S u m m ary j u dg m en t i s proper

“ i f t he pl e ad i ngs , t he di s c o ve r y and di scl o s ur e m at e r i al s o n f i l e , a nd a ny af f i davi t s sho w t hat t her e i s n o ge nui ne i ss ue as t o a ny m at er i alfac t and t hat th e m ov a n t is en ti tl ed to j u d gm en t as a m a tter of l a w . ” F ED . R. C IV . P
. 5 6 (c ). A g e n u in e is s u e o f m a te r ia l fa c t e x is ts w h e n th e e v id e n c e is s u c h th a t a re a s o n a b le ju r y co u ld re tu r n a v e r d ic t fo r th e n o n -m o v a n t. A n d ers on v. L i berty L obby, I n c. , 4 7 7 U. S

. 2 4 2 , 2 4 8 ( 1 9 8 6 )

. W he n r e v i e wi n ga g r a n t o f s u mm a r y j u d g me n t , we vi ew al lfac t s and evi denc e i n t he l i ght m os t favor abl e t o t he non- m ovi ng par t y. Un i t ed Fi re & C as. Co. v. H i xson B ros. , 4 5 3 F .3d 2 8 3 , 2 8 5 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). H ow e ve r , t o a vo i d s um m ar y j udg m e nt , t he no n- m o va ntm us t g o b e yo nd t he pl ead i n gs an d com e f orw ard w i t h speci f

i c fac ts in d ica t i n g a gen u i n e i ssue f or tr ia l. P i azza’

s Seafood W

orl d , L L Cv. O d om , 4 4 8 F .3d 7 4 4 , 7 5 2 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). W e m ay“ af

f i r m a g r anto f

s um m ar y j udg m e nto n a ny gr o unds s upp o r t e d b y t he
reco rd an d p rese n ted to th e cou rt below
. ” Hernan d ez v. V el asqu ez , 522 F. 3d 556, 5 6 0 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). I I I . DI S CU S S I ON O n app eal , L ascol a a rg u e s th at w e m u strevers e t h e gran t of sum m ary j udg m e nti n fav o r o f Fi t zgeral d’ s a nd Tuni c a Count y. She c o nt e nds t hats he pr o duc e d e vi de nc e s uf f i c i e ntt o c r e at e a g e nui ne i s s ue of m ater i alfac t a bo ut
w h et h er Fi t zgeral d’ s w as neg l i gen t
. Sh e al so argues t h at the di st ri ctcourterr edN o. 08- 61029

6 i n di sm i ssi n g h er c l ai m forreckl ess di sregard aga i n stT u n i ca C ou n t y as barred b y th e a p p lic a b le s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . A. W he t he r t he di s t r i c t c our t e r r e d by gr ant i ng s um m ar y j udgm e nt i n f a v o r o f F i t z g e r a ld ’s L ascol a m ai n t ai n s t h at th e di st ri ctcourterr ed by gran t i n g sum m ary j udgm ent t o Fi t zge r al d’ s bas ed on i t s f i ndi ng t hat Lasc ol a c oul d notes t abl i sh ( 1) t h a t F it z g e r a ld ’s h a d k n o w le d g e o f M a s s a ’s d e m e n t ia , o r (2 ) t h a t F it z g e r a ld ’s
ow ed M as sa a s pec i aldut y o f c ar e b ec ause s he w as di sa b l ed a nd l i vi ng i n an a ssis te d -livin g facil i ty. S h e claim s th a t a ge n u i n e issu e of m a terialfa ct exists ab o utw he t he r Fi t z ge r al d’ s o w e d M as s a a dut y o f c ar e a s a pr e m i s e s o w ne ra nd br eac hed t hat dut y. She al so al l ege s a s epar at e g ener alnegl i genc e c l ai m — t hat F i tzge ra l d ’ s i s l i a b l e for the all eg ed bre a ch of th e se cu ri ty gu a rd ’ s a l l eg ed du ty to a s s is t c o n fu s e d p e o p le in th e F itz g e r a ld ’ s p a r k in glo t. 1
. P rem i ses L i a b i l i ty A pr e m i s e s o w ne r ha s a dut y o f c ar e t o a l lpe o pl e w ho co m e upon i t s l and , bu t M i ssi ssi pp ila w c re a tes a di st i n ct i on i n t h e st an da rd of care ow ed to such peop l e based u pon t h ei r s t atus as e ith e r i n vi t ees, l i censees, or t respassers . H uds o n v . Cour t e sy Mo t o r s , I nc ., 7 9 4 S o . 2 d 9 9 9 (M is s . 2 0 0 1 ); s e e als o Mass ey v . Ting le , 867 So. 2d 23 5, 239 (M i ss. 200 4) ( n ot i n g t h at M i ssi ssi pp iprem i sesl i ab i l i t y l aw r e qui r e s a det e r m i nat i o n of t he l e ga ls t at us o f

t he i nj ur e d p e r s o n, th e re lev a n t d u ty o f c a re , a n d th e d e fen d a n t’ s c o m p li a n ce w ith th a t d u ty ). B e c aus e Fi t z ge r al d’ s i nvi t e d t he r e s i de nt s o f St

. Pe t e r M ano r t o t he c as i n o, M a ssa i s p rop erly con sider ed an i n vitee
. Cor l ey v . Evan s , 835 So. 2d 30, 37 (M is s . 2 0 0 3 ) (“[A ]n in v ite e is a p e r s o n w h o g o e s u p o n th e p r e m is e s o f a n o th e rin
a n s w e r to th e e x p r e s s o r im p lie d in v ita tio n o f t h e o w n e r o r o c c u p a n t fo r th e ir
m ut uala dv ant ag e . ” )

. A pr em i ses o w ne r o w e s a n i nvi t e e a dut y t o “ ke e p t he prem i s e s r e as o nab l y s af e , a nd when no t r e as o nab l y s af e , t o w ar n o nl y w h ere th ere i s h i d d en da n ge r o r p erilth a t is n ot in p l a i n a n d op en view
. ” Id
. at37- 38;N o. 08- 61029

7 s e e W o o d v . RI

H Ac q ui s i t i o ns MS I

I LLC , 5 56 F. 3d 2 74 , 2 75 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 9) ( “ The prem i ses en coun t ered by a b u si n ess i n vi t ee m u stbe reasonab l y safe, an d w h en th e y are n ot , t h e i n vi t ee i s t o be w arn ed of peri l s t h at are n ot i n pl ai n v iew .”)

. But a pr e m i s e s o w ne r do e s no t i nsure t he s af e t y o f pe r s o ns i nvi t e d o nt o t he p r o p e r ty
. Pig

gv . Ex p r e s s Ho t e lPa r t ne r s , LLC , 99 1 S o . 2 d 11 97, 119 9 (M i ss. 2 0 0 8 ). Las c o l a as s e r t s t hatFi t z ge r al d’ s ha d a dut y t o w ar n M as s a o f anyha z ar ds
ex i sti n g o n or a rou n d i ts pro p erty
. S h e cla im s th a t, i n this case , the secu ri ty gu ard h ad a du t y t o w arn M assa abou t “ t h e sw ol l en river st age an d u pon w h i ch t h e R i ver M u seum w as l ocat ed. ” B u t nei t h er t h e R i ver M u seum nor t h e w ooded
area w h ere M assa w as f ou n d w as l ocat ed on F i t zgeral d’ s propert y. La scol a ci t es n o au t h ori t y f

or t h e proposi t i on t h at Fi t zgeral d’ s had a du t y t o w arn i n vi t ees of h a z a r d o u s co n d itio n s lo c a te d o n a n o th e r ’ s p r o p e r ty
. See , e . g. , I nt ’lPaperCo. v. Townse nd , 961 So. 2d 74 1 , 7 5 1 (M iss
. C t
. A pp . 200 7) (f i n di n g n o du t y t o w arn in v itee of a h a z a rd th a t d o e s n o t ex ist o n th e p re m ise s); H ig g in b o th a m v. H ill B ros. Con st r. Co. , I

n c. , 962 So. 2d 46, 56- 57 (M i ss . C t
. A pp. 2006) (hol di ng t hat
a p r e m is e s o w n e r h a s n o d u ty t o w a r n o f o r re m e d y d a n g e r o u s co n d itio n th a t it h a s n o re s p o n s ib ility o r co n tr o l o v e r ). Lasc ol a f

urt herargues thatF i t zge r al d’ s “ fai l ed t o be pr oac t i ve” and t hat it h a d a d u ty to r e n d e r a ss ista n ce to M a ss a to p re v e n t h e r fro m w a n d e rin goff
an d d i sapp eari n g. W h i l e M i ssi ssi pp il aw rec ogn i zes a du t y of t h e prem i ses o w n e r t o r e n d e r a id t o a n in v ite e inju r e d o n it s p r e m is e s , t h is d u ty a r is e s o n ly
w hen t he prem i se s ow nerl ear ns of the i nvi t ee ’ s i nj ury and onl y i n t he fac e o f an a c tu a l inju r y . S ee S

potl i t e Sk ati ng R i n k, I n c. v. B arn es , 988 So. 2d 364 , 369- 70 (M i ss. 20 0 8 ). L a scola po i n ts to n o M i ssissi p p i l a w i m p osin g a g en era l“du ty to be pro ac t i ve” on a l and ow ner . S he c i t es no e vi denc e s how i ng t hat M as sa w as i nj u red on F i t zgeral d’ s prem i ses. Th u s, t h i s i s n o t a case of “ fai l u re t o render fi rst aid.” Cf

. G ri sha m v. Joh n O

. L ong V
. F
. W
. Post , No. 405 7, I n c. , 519 So. 2dN o. 08- 61029

L ascol a reli es entirely on the fact that Tu nic a County was experie ncingcol d weather 6 on Decembe r 13, and the security tape does not r evealwhether Massa wa s wearinga winter coatatth e ti me shedisappeare d. Fitzgeral d’s introduced evidence thatth e mean temperature on December 13, 200 4 was 44 degrees Fahrenheit. La scoladoe s no t di spute this evidence b ut asserts that th e cold t emperaturecontrib uted to Ma ssa’s di sap p ea r an c e and death . But La scolah as pre sente d no evi denceth at a t emperatureof 44 degr ee s Fahrenheit co nstitutes a dangerou s condition or thatMassa’ s presence o utsidewithout a winter coatput Fitz ge rald’s onnotic e th at sh e wa s indis tr es s. Accordin g to L ascol a, Fitz ge rald’s h ad aduty to render aid to Ma ssa th at arose“whe n 7 Fitzgeral d’s security gu ard beca me aware of Ms. Massa’s presence outdo ors i n t he casino’ s restricted area un der the unu suallyinclement weathercon ditio ns exi sting onDecemb er 1 3, 2 0 0 4 .” Walkin garo u n d inc ol d we ath eri s notan“in j ury .” 8 413 , 417 (M i ss. 198 8) ( i m posi n g a du t y on a p rem i ses ow n er t o ai d a p erson “ on ce t hey l ear ned s he had be en i nj ure d on [the i r] p r em i se s. ” )

. Th e m er e fac t t hat M assa w as w al king arou n d the casi n o park i n g l oti n col d w e a th er does not esta b l i sh tha t F i tzge ra l d ’ s h a d the req u i sit e k n ow l ed ge of M a ssa ’ s con d i ti on to t ri gger a du t y t o render assi st an ce. N or i s h er all eged l y di sori en t ed cond i t i on 6
an “ i nj u ry” t h at oc curred on F i t zgeral d’ s prem i ses. 7 F i n al l y, L ascol a cl ai m s t h at F i t zgeral d’ s had a du t y n ott o subj ectM assa t o i n creased dan ger or h azard un der Hof f m an v. P l an t ers G in C o. , 358 So. 2d 10 08 , 1 01 3 (M i s s . 1 97 8)

. I n Hof f m an , a fo u r te e n y e a r -o ld b o y a c c o m p a n ie d h is fat her t o w or k t r anspo r t i ng c ot t ons ee d f r om t he def

endant c om pany’ s gi n t o a n o i lm i l l
. The b o y, w hi l e a ssi st i n g hi s fat he r , s l i ppe d a nd f e l li nt o a r e vo l vi ng aug e r , c aus i ng hi m t o l o s e hi s l e g. The M i s s i s s i ppiSupr e m e C o ur t hel d t hatt he t ri alcourterr ed i n gran t i n g a perem ptory i n st ructi on based on in t en t i on alor w a n to n n e g lig e n c e . Id
. at 101 3. Th e courtst ated: “ W e t h i n k the prem i ses ow n er is lia b le fo r inju r y p r o x im a te ly ca u s e d b y h is a ffir m a tiv e o r a c tiv e n e g lig e n c e in th e op era ti on or con trol of a b u sine ss w h i ch su b j ects eithe r l i cen see or i n vitee to
unus ualda nge r , o r i nc r e as e s t he ha z ar d t o hi m , w he n hi s pr e s e nc e i s kno w n a nd t hat t he s t andard o f or di nary and re as onabl e c ar e has appl i c a ti on . ” Id
. But L ascol a h as not assert ed a fact u al basi s f or her c l ai m t h at Fi t zgeral d’ s s u bj ect edN o. 08- 61029

I n contrast, Fitz ge ral d ’s h as pre sente d testi monyfrom nume rous witnesses that 8 Ma ssadidnote xhib itanyab n or mal sy mp to ms onth e dayo f h erdis a pp earance . 9 M assa t o an y da n ger— or i n creased dan ger— by i n vi t i n g h er t o t h e casi n o. Lasc ol a h as fai l ed t o po i nt t o a s i ngl e a c t of af f i r m at i ve negl i genc e b y F itz g e r a ld ’ s th a t c a u s e d M a s s a ’ s d e a th
. S ee New el lv. S

. Jit n ey Ju ngl e Co. , 830 S o. 2d 62 1, 623 (M i ss. 200 2) ( “ [ N ] egl i gen ce w h i ch m erel y f u rni shes t h e condit i on o r o c c as i o n up o n whi c h i nj ur i e s a r e r e c e i ve d, b ut doe s no t puti n m o t i o n t he agen cy by or t h rough w h i ch the i nj u ri es are i n f l i ct ed, i s not t h e proxi m ate c au se t he r e o f

. ” ) ( c i t at i o n a nd q uo t at i o ns o m i t t e d)

. I n s um , Las c o l a has no t a l l e ge d a fact u albasi s f

rom w h i ch w e can con cl u de t h at F i t zgeral d’ s h ad a du t y t o w arn orr enderas si st ance t o M as sa . 2. G en eralN egl i gen ce B ased U pon B reach of a “ S ecuri t y O f

f i cer D u t y of C are” T o p re v a ilon a n egl i gen ce c l ai m un der M i ssi ssi pp il aw , a pl ai n t i f f m u st
es t abl i sh ( 1) dut y, ( 2) br eac h of t hat dut y, ( 3) ca u sa t i on, and ( 4) i nj ury. Pa t t e r s on v. Li b e r ty As s o c s . , L. P. , 9 1 0 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 4 , 1 0 1 9 (M is s . 2 0 0 4 ); seeal so C rai n v. C l evelan dL odge 1532, O rder of t h e M oose, I n c. , 641 So. 2d 118 6, 1189 (M is s . 1 9 9 4 ) (h o l d i n gth a t t o d e m o n s tr a te th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in gr ant i ng s um m ar y j udgm ent , appel l ant m usts how a genui ne i ss ue of m at er i al fac t e xi s t s o n e ac h o f t he s e e l e m e nt s )

. La s c o l a s ugg e s t s t hats e c ur i t y gua r ds hav e a s pe c i aldut y t o “ c ar e f o r ” c as i no pa t r o ns w ho l i ve i n as s i s t e d l i vi ng. She
a c k n o w le d g e s th a t “ [t] h e r e is cu r r e n tly n o la w in M is s is s ip p i d ir e c tly o n p o in t.” N o ne t he l e s s , s he a r gue s fo r so m e ge ne r al i z e d dut y o n s e c ur i t y gua r ds t o “ m ak e i n q u i r y ” o f p e o p l e wa n d e r i n g i n t h e p a r k i n g l o t
. W e d e c l i n e t h e a ppa r e nt i n v i t a t i o n t o c r e a t e a n e w d u t y u n d e r Mi s s i s s i p p il a w. Eve n i f t he r e w e r e s uc h a dut y, Las c o l a fai l e d t o put f o r w ar d any
c om pet entev i denc e t hat t he s ec uri t y guar d knew ors houl d hav e k n ow n t hat M assa w as experi en ci n g an ep i sode of d i sori en t ati on . Instead L ascol a rel i es on 8N o. 08- 61029

Th e parties disputewhether the security t ap e s hows Ma ssa wearin g a c oat or 9 somethingle ss prote ctive.

La scolaal so a sserts th at the security gu ard failed toact a s woul d a reaso nab le 10 personu nder the same o r similar circu mstance s. B ecau se we concludeth at La scolafailed to demonstr ate that the security gu ard knew orsho uld have known thatMassa was disoriented ordis ab le d, wec a n n otsayth at th e se curitygu ardact edu nre a so n ab ly
.

I t is u ncl ear wh eth er L a sc ol a inte n de d to a pp eal th e su mmary j u dgment on gros s 11 negli ge nce. I n anyevent, ther e i s noevidence in the recor d to support such a clai m – that Fitzgeral d’s took actions that k no w in gl y exposed Massa to inj ury . A bsent such evidence, L a sc ol aca n n otsurvive su mmaryju dgme nt onhe r gro ss- n egli gencec laim
. See, e.g. , Mo el le r v. Am. Guar. & Liab
. Ins. C o. , 70 7So. 2d 1 0 6 2 , 10 7 2 (Mi ss. 19 9 6) (notin gth at ac laimo f gro ss n egli gencer equir esawillful ormaliciou s wro n g). 10 t h e gap i n t h e sec u ri t y t ap e t o asser t tha t the securi t y gu ard spok e w i t h M assa an d, du ri n g t h e el even sec on ds of m i ssi n g t ap e, l earn ed that she suf fered f rom dem en t i a. B u tL ascol a h as presented n o w i t n esses or t est i m on y t o sup port h er cl ai m t h at M assa w as vi sibl y di sori en t ed, an d the m ere fact t h at M assa w as not
w e a r in ga w in te r co a t o u ts id e d o e s n o t s u p p o r t s u c h a n in fe r e n c e . Ne e l y v . N. 9 Mi ss. Med. C t r. , I

n c. , 99 6 So

. 2 d 7 26 , 7 29 (M i s s . 2 00 8) ( “ I t i s e l e m e nt ar y t hatt he pl ai n t i f f bears t h e bu rden of

provi n g h i s c l ai m an d can n otsi m pl y rel y on h i s or h e r p le a d in g s w h e n re s p o n d in gto a m o tio n fo r s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t .”); seeal so Luve ne v . W

al dr up , 903 So. 2d 7 4 5, 748 (M i ss . 2005) (“ T h e n o n -m o v in gp a r t y ’s
c la im m u s t b e s u p p o r te d b y m o r e th a n a m e r e s c in tilla o f c o lo r a b le e v id e n c e ; it
m u s t b e e v id e n c e u p o n w h ic h a fa ir -m in d e d ju r y co u ld re tu r n a fa v o r a b le
v e r d ic t .” ). L a s c o la h a s p u tfo r t h n o fa c t u a l b a s is fo r h e r c la im th a t F it z g e r a ld ’s securi t y gu ard k n ew or shou l d h ave kn ow n of M assa’ s al l eged st ate of di st ress . 10 W e con cl u d e n o sp ecial d u ty of ca re ex i sted , a n d n o com p eten t evide n ce su p p orts a cl ai m of

breach of

an y such du t y. W e A F F IR M t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s s u m m ary j u dg m en t i n favor of F i t zgeral d’ s. 11N o. 08- 61029

Tu nic a County also asserts that La scola waived her argument that the ni ne ty-day 12 tolling provi sionof the MTCA appli es toh er clai m. This is not so . L as c ol a p r es en t ed th e argu me nt toth e di strictcourtan d itwasrej ecte d ba se d onth e im prop erapp licationo f Caves

. Las c ol a p r op erly r aised the issue on appeal b y assertingth at the discoveryrule toll s the st atuteo f li mitation s until Ma ssa’sr em ain s w er e di sc over ed
. There for e, he r re ckle ssdi sr egardc laimi s p ro pe rlyb ef or e thisc ourt
. 11 B . W h e th e r th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d b y g r a n tin g su m m a r y ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f T u n ica C o u n ty L as c o l a c o nt e nds t hatt he di s t r i c t c o ur t e r r e d i n g r ant i ng s um m ary j u dg m en t f

or Tu n i ca C ou n t y on t h e g roun d t h at the st atute of l i m i t ati on s barred h er re c kl e s s - di s r e ga r d c l ai m . The di s t r i c t c o ur t b as e d i t s r ul i ng o n Cav e s v. Y arb r ough , N o. 200 6- C A

- 018 57, 200 7 W L 319 750 4 (M i ss. N ov. 1, 200 7) , w h i ch h el d that t h e M i ssi ssi pp iT ortC l ai m s A ct(M T C A) di d n otcontai n a di scovery rul e t ol l i n g t h e app l i cabl e st atute of li m i t ati on s. A t the t i m e t h e di st ri ctcourt
m ad e i t s de c i s i o n, t he M i s s i s s i ppiSupr e m e Cour t had gr ant e d r e he ar i ng o f t he
case. T h e M i ssi ssi pp iSu prem e C ou rtsubsequ en t l y w i t h drew t h e earl i er C aves o p in io n a s co n tr a r y to p r e c e d e n t a n d s ta r e d e c is is
. C ave s v. Yarbr ough , 991 So

. 2d 1 42 (M i s s . 2 00 8) (ho l di ng t hatt he s t at ut e o f l i m i t at i o ns f

o r c l ai m s b r o ugh t unde r t he M TC A be gi ns t o r un o n t he da t e t hata l le l e m e nt s o f a t o r t e xi s ta nd
reco gn i zing a d i scov ery ru l e for M T C Acl a i m s). O n a p p e a l , T u n i ca C ou n ty concedes that it m i si n t erpret ed the l aw bu t argu es t h at t h e gran t of sum m ary j udg m e nts ho ul d be af f i r m e d be c aus e L as c o l a has fai l e d t o ra i s e a g e nui ne i s s ue o f ma t e r i a lfa c to n t h e me r i t s o f h e r r e c k l e s s - d i s r e g a r d c l a i m. 12 M is s is s ip p i la w p r o v id e s : Agovernm en t ale n t i t y an d i t s em pl oyees act i n g w i t h i n t h e course and s c o pe o f

t he i r e m pl o ym e nto r dut i e s s hal l no t be l i ab l e f o r a ny cla im
. . . a risin gou t of a n y a ct o r o m iss ion of a n em p loy e e of a govern m en t alenti t y en gag ed i n t h e perf orm an ce or executi on of dut i e s o r a c t i vi t i e s r e l at i ng t o po l i c e o r f i re p r o t e c t i o n unl e s s t he em pl oyee act ed i n rec kles s d i sregard of the safet y an d w el l

- bei n g of an y person n ot eng aged i n cr i m i n alact i vi t y at the t i m e of t h e i nj u ry

. . .N o. 08- 61029

12 M is s . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -4 6 -9 (1 )(c ). The pa r t i e s a gr e e t hatD epu t y Johns o n was l awf ul l y e nga ge d i n t he p e r fo r m a n c e o f h e r d u tie s a s a la w e n fo r c e m e n t of fic e r w h e n s h e in c o r r e c tly st ated t h at Tu n i ca C ou n t y pol i cy requi red t w en t y- f ou r hou rs t o el ap se bef ore a f u l l

- scal e searc h coul d be con du ct ed. Th e pa rt i es al so agree t h at M assa w as not
e n g a g e d in cr im in a l a c tiv ity a t t h e tim e o f h e r inju r y . T h u s , th e o n ly is s u e is
w h e th e r D e p u ty J o h n s o n a c te d w ith re c k le s s d is r e g a r d
. The M i s s i s s i ppiSupr e m e Cour t ha s de f i ne d r e c kl e s s di s r e ga r d as “ w i l l f ul
or w an t on con du ctw h i ch requ i res kn ow i n gl y an d i n t en t i on al l y doi n g a thi n g or w ron gfu lact. ” Tu rn erv. C ity of R u lev ille , 7 3 5 S o . 2 d 2 2 6 , 2 3 0 (M is s . 1 9 9 9 ). R eck l ess disreg a rd i s ge n era l l y “a cco m p a n ied by a co n sciou s i n d i ff ere n ce to
con seq u en ces, am ou n ti n g al m os tt o aw i l l i ngness t hath a rm sh ou l d f oll ow . ” Maye v . Pea rl R ive r C o u n ty , 758 So. 2d 391, 394 (M i ss. 199 9)

. In assess i n g w h et h er a l aw enf

o r c e m e nto f

f i c e r a c t e d wi t h r e c kl e s s di s r e ga r d, t hi s c o ur t m us t e xa m i ne t he t ot al i t y o f

t he c i r c um st ance s, j udg i n g th e of f i c er ’ s c onductby an obj ec t i ve s ta n d a r d
. Ph ill ip s v . Miss
. D ep ’ t of P u b
. S afety , 9 7 8 S o . 2 d 6 5 6 , 6 6 1 (M iss
. 2 0 0 8 ). L a scola a sse rts th a t T u n i ca C ou n ty, th rou gh D ep u ty J oh n son , a cted w i th reck l ess disreg a rd to M a ssa ’ s w ell -bein g b eca u se D ep u ty J oh n son fa i l ed to cond u cta f

u l l

- scal e searc h f

or M assa w i t h i n t w en t y- f o u r hou rs of

her d i sa p p ea ra n ce in v i olati on of D ep a rtm en t po l i cy . L a scola a sse rts tha t D ep u ty Joh n son w as aw are of M assa’ s dem en t i a an d that she ha d w an dered off bef ore, p l a ci n g h er a t ri sk of i nj u ry . A ccord i n g to L a scola, th ese fa cts are su ff i ci en t t o c r e a te a g e n u in e is s u e o f m a te r ia l fa c t o n h e r re c k le s s -d is r e g a r d cla im
. But Las c o l a do e s no t di s put e D e put y Jo hns o n’ s s w o r n t e s t i m o ny t hats he
c o n d u c te d a n in itia l s e a r c h o f th e a r e a s u r r o u n d i n g F itz g e r a ld ’ s im m e d ia te ly af t ers peaki ng w i t h Lasc ol a, i ss ued a B e O n t he Look O ut ( B O LO ) not i c e f oran i n di vi du alm atc h i n g M assa’ s descr i pti on , an d d ra fted a pol i ce r eport. T u n i ca C ou n ty a d m i ts t h a t Sh erif f’ s D ep a rtm en t po l ic y re q u i res law en forcem en t t oN o. 08- 61029

13 c o nduc t a f

ul l

- s c al e s e ar c h f

o rm i s s i ng ad ul t s w i t h m e nt aldi s ab i l i t i e s a nd
ac kno w l e dg e s t hatD e put y Jo hns o n i nc o r r e c t l y c i t e d t he g e ne r alr ul e r e qui r i ng tw en ty-f

ou r h ou rs to l a p se b efore se a rch in g fo r a m i ssing ad u l t. B u t D ep u ty Joh n son’ s fai l u re t o request a can i n e u n i t a n d t h e a ssi st an ce of hel i copter s does
n ot am ou n tt o kn ow i n gl y or i n te n tion a ll y doi n g a w rongfulact
. Th ere i s a di s t i nc t i o n b e t w e e n di s r e ga r di ng t he de pa r t m e ntpo l i c y and di s r e ga r di ng t he
r is k to a n in d iv id u a l. T h e e v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d s h o w s th a t D e p u ty J o h n s o n d id
n o t di s r e ga r d a kno w n r i s k t o M as s a o r a c t w i t h i ndi f fe r e nc e t o t he consequ en ces. Indeed , she t ook acti on t o l ocat e M assa an d assi stL ascol a i n her eff orts to d o t h e sam e. L a scola’ s a l l eg a ti on s, tak en i n a l i gh t m ost fav ora b l e to h er, esta b l i sh tha t D e p u ty J oh n son m a y h a ve be en n eg l i ge n t i n fa i l i n g to
c o n d u c t a fu ll-s c a le s e a r c h b u t d o n o t s u p p o r t a c la im fo r re c k le s s d is r e g a r d
. S ee, e . g. , C ity of

G ree n vi l l e v. Jon es , 925 So. 2d 106 , 118 (M i ss . 2006) (f i ndi ng t hat i nad e qua t e i nve s t i ga t i o n o f b o m b t hr e ats us pe c t o r fai l ur e t o t ak e c e r t a i n a c t i o ns du ri n g t h e course of

an i n vest i gati on am ou n t s t o a n egl i gen ce cl ai m , n otrec kles s d is r e g a r d ). W e concl u de that no reasona bl e j u ror coul d f i n d that Tu n i ca C ou n t y act ed
w i t h rec kles s di sregard t o M assa’ s s afet y. Th eref ore, t h e di st ri ctcourtdi d n ot
e r r in g r a n tin gs u m m a r y ju d g m e n t o n th is cla im
. I V . C ONC L US I ON F or t h e f

oregoi n g reasons, w e A F F IR M t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s grant of
sum m ary j u dg m en tto Fit zgeral d’ s and T u n i ca C ou n t y on L ascol a’ s negl i gen ce a n d re c k le s s -d is r e g a r d cla im s . A F F IR M E D
.