Opinion ID: 1935799
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the lower court erred by directing a verdict for kroger?

Text: The rule in determining whether a motion for directed verdict should be granted, requires the trial judge to consider the evidence on behalf of the party against whom a directed verdict is requested, along with all reasonable inferences, in the light most favorable to said party, disregard any evidence of the other party in conflict therewith, and, if the evidence and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom would support a verdict for such party, the motion for directed verdict should be denied. Litton Systems, Inc. v. Enochs, 449 So.2d 1213, 1215 (Miss. 1984) (citing Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Blakeney, 353 So.2d 769, 772 (Miss. 1978)). A business owner or operator owes a duty to the invitee to keep its premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn of dangerous conditions which are not readily apparent to the invitee. Munford, Inc. v. Fleming, 597 So.2d 1282, 1284 (Miss. 1992); Jerry Lee's Grocery, Inc. v. Thompson, 528 So.2d 293, 295 (Miss. 1988). No proof of the operator's knowledge of the condition is necessary where the condition is created by his negligence or the negligence of someone under his authority. Douglas v. Great Atlantic & Pac. Tea Co., 405 So.2d 107, 110 (Miss. 1981); Winn Dixie v. Hughes, 247 Miss. 575, 156 So.2d 734, 736 (1963). However, the owner or occupant is not an insurer against all injuries. Kroger, Inc. v. Ware, 512 So.2d 1281, 1282 (Miss. 1987). If the dangerous condition was created by someone not associated with the operation of the store, the plaintiff must produce evidence demonstrating that the operator had actual or constructive knowledge of the condition. Downs v. Choo, 656 So.2d 84, 86 (Miss. 1995). Constructive knowledge is present where, based on the length of time that the condition existed, the operator exercising reasonable care should have known of its presence. Waller v. Dixieland Food Stores, Inc., 492 So.2d 283, 285 (Miss. 1986). There was substantial evidence demonstrating that the cause of Drennan's fall was a puddle of water on aisle four. Her clothes were damp as she lay on the floor. Other witnesses including the store manager noticed water in the area after her fall; it was subsequently mopped up by a store employee. Whether there was evidence which might have supported an inference of knowledge poses a more difficult question. Because the record contains no evidence, nor was there any contention, that Kroger's employees had actual knowledge of the existence of water on aisle four, the issue is whether the evidence was sufficient to support an inference of constructive notice. In Thompson, supra, the evidence was insufficient to establish constructive knowledge where a spill on the floor was soiled with foot prints and shopping cart tracks since an employee testified that he had examined the accident site only minutes before the accident and saw nothing. 528 So.2d at 294. In Waller, supra, the plaintiff slipped approximately 2 1/2 hours after the aisle had been checked by an employee. 492 So.2d at 286. This Court found the evidence of constructive knowledge insufficient because, without the existence of tracks or footprints in the liquid found on the floor, it was just as reasonable to assume the substance was spilled one minute before the accident as opposed to a couple of hours earlier. Id. Finally, in Douglas, supra, we found the evidence insufficient to establish notice where an employee last walked by site of accident approximately fifty minutes prior to accident and observed no dangerous condition in the area. 405 So.2d at 110-11. Drennan produced the following evidence in an attempt to establish the inference of constructive notice: photographs of water stains on the ceiling tile above aisle four; testimony that there was an unusually heavy rain that afternoon; the store manager, Wurth, admitted that the store had suffered roof damage in 1986, and some resulting leaks in the ceiling, and; Wurth conceded that the leaks usually occurred in periods of heavy rain. Although Wurth testified that he had been constantly surveying the aisles that afternoon because his boss was visiting the store, the facts demonstrated that he was interrupted from a budget meeting to come to the aid of Drennan. There were no footprints or shopping cart tracks in the water, but the heavy rains coupled with the stains on the ceiling directly above the site of the accident were sufficient to establish an inference of constructive notice or that the owner was responsible for the condition. Wurth conceded that the roof leaked in periods of heavy rain. There was no other testimony to suggest that other employees were monitoring the store while Wurth attended the budget meeting. Accordingly, we find that the evidence was sufficient to withstand Kroger's motion for a directed verdict. Even though Drennan established the element of notice, its proof is not necessary where it is claimed that the condition was created by the negligence of the proprietor or an individual acting under his authority. Munford, 597 So.2d at 1284. The plaintiff in Munford also slipped in a puddle of water as she was walking through the store. Id. at 1283. An employee testified that she regularly adjusted water bottles on the shelf in order to avoid leakage. Although this Court found the evidence insufficient to show that the store had actual or constructive knowledge of the existence of the water, the evidence was determined to be sufficient to establish a prima facie case that the employees negligently created the condition. Id. This Court concluded that the employee's testimony created a jury question as to whether she negligently adjusted the water bottle causing it to leak onto the floor. Id. Kroger contends that this case is no different than Douglas, supra, where a frozen food case leaked about a gallon of water onto the floor resulting in a slip and fall accident. 405 So.2d at 109. In Douglas, there was evidence by the A & P porter that water sometimes collected in front of the frozen food case, but the store manager maintained that the freezer had never leaked before. Id. at 109. Another employee said there was not any water by the freezers 50 minutes prior to the accident. This Court determined that the plaintiff had the burden of establishing notice because she failed to prove that the water was the result of an affirmative act of the proprietor or his employees. Id. at 110. However, the present case is distinguishable from Douglas, and analogous to the situation presented in Munford. In Douglas, the freezer had never seriously leaked on prior occasions like it apparently did when it released about a gallon of water onto the floor in a period of fifty minutes before the plaintiff suffered her accident. In the case at hand, there was evidence that the roof was prone to leak during periods of rain. A juror could easily infer from the evidence that the collection of water on the floor was not completely unexpected as was the situation in Douglas. As in the Munford case, Drennan claimed that the presence of the condition was due to the negligence of the store in repairing the roof, and that this negligence was the proximate cause of Drennan's accident. Proof of notice is not necessary if the condition was created by the negligence of the proprietor or someone under his authority. Drennan produced evidence demonstrating that Kroger should have been aware from past conditions, occurrences, and stains on the ceiling that the area above aisle four leaked in periods of heavy rain. Patrons were temporarily protected from water collecting on the floor by the placing of buckets below the leaks in the store. It was apparently raining very hard on the day Drennan suffered her accident. She introduced a photograph of water stains in the ceiling tiles directly above aisle four. An engineer for Kroger testified that the roof had required a considerable amount of repairs in the past. These circumstances created an inference that the Kroger store should have been aware of the leaks in the roof. Therefore, the evidence was sufficient as well to create a jury issue as to whether Kroger was negligent in repairing the roof, and whether it was the proximate cause of Drennan's accident. See Munford, 597 So.2d at 1285 (stating that evidence created factual question as to causation of dangerous condition). Drennan may recover on this type claim without proof of the length of time that the water was on the floor before she fell.