Opinion ID: 1744152
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the circuit court erred in granting b.h. acquisition a directed verdict with regard to the issue of premises liability.

Text: ¶ 6. Anderson alleges that the trial court erred by granting B.H. Acquisition's motion for a directed verdict. Specifically, she asserts that B.H. Acquisition had prior and/or constructive knowledge of the oil on the driveway and had a duty to warn her of any dangerous conditions which it knew or reasonably should have known were present. B.H. Acquisition, however, maintains that it did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition and that the directed verdict was proper. We find that the directed verdict was improper and that the jury should have been presented with these issues. ¶ 7. In Mississippi, an owner, occupant, or person in charge of a premises owes to an invitee or business visitor a duty to exercise ordinary care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition or to warn the invitee of dangerous conditions, not readily apparent, which the owner or occupier knows of or should know of in the exercise of reasonable care. Waller v. Dixieland Food Stores, Inc., 492 So.2d 283, 285 (Miss.1986). When the dangerous condition is traceable to the proprietor's own negligence, no knowledge of its existence need by shown. Id. However, the owner or occupant is not an insurer against all injuries. Drennan v. Kroger Co., 672 So.2d 1168, 1170 (Miss. 1996). Where the presence of the dangerous condition is due to the act of a third party, it must be shown that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of its presence. Waller, 492 So.2d at 285. ¶ 8. Simply put, in order for a plaintiff to recover in a slip-and-fall case, he must (1) show that some negligent act of the defendant caused his injury; or (2) show that the defendant had actual knowledge of a dangerous condition and failed to warn the plaintiff; or (3) show that the dangerous condition existed for a sufficient amount of time to impute constructive knowledge to the defendant, in that the defendant should have known of the dangerous condition. Downs v. Choo, 656 So.2d 84, 86 (Miss.1995); see also Munford, Inc. v. Fleming, 597 So.2d 1282, 1284 (Miss.1992). ¶ 9. Anderson's attempts at the first two theories of recovery are weak. The only evidence Anderson presented concerning a possible negligent act of B.H. Acquisition was the testimony of her husband who said he thought there was oil on the driveway where she landed. She produced no testimony or proof that B.H. Acquisition or its employees were responsible for the oily condition of the pavement. Anderson also failed to show that B.H. Acquisition had actual knowledge that oil was on the driveway the day the accident occurred. The record contains no evidence that the employees or anyone associated with B.H. Acquisition had actual knowledge of oil on the driveway on the day at issue. ¶ 10. The third possibility-the imputation of constructive knowledge upon B.H. Acquisition-is Anderson's most promising theory of recovery. 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. Drennan, 672 So.2d at 1170. The Andersons and Johnstons testified that they waited in the hotel lobby approximately thirty minutes before the shuttle arrived. They further testified that they saw no cars stop or pass through the covered entrance to the hotel during the period they were in the lobby. On cross-examination, however, all four admitted that they did not continually watch the door and could not positively state that absolutely no other cars were present on that particular morning. ¶ 11. Scott Gray, director of security for B.H. Acquisition at the time of the incident, testified that there were cars parked underneath the canopy when he arrived at the accident scene and that it would be unusual for no cars to pass through or be present under the canopy at 9:00 a.m. in the morning. Gray further described the process by which the hotel would alleviate any spilled oil on the pavement surface and testified that he had previously seen discolorations on the pavement but could not state that he had ever seen anything identified as oil. Gray admitted it was the duty of the bell hops and desk clerk to maintain the area in which Anderson fell. However, Gray also testified that the bell hops have other duties elsewhere in the hotel other than under the canopy and that neither the bell hops nor the desk clerk could see the areas where Anderson fell from their respective stations or stands. Julie Tiblier, the driver of the shuttle bus, testified that she did not recall seeing any kind of debris or other foreign material that would have presented a hazard on the day of the incident and that, if she had seen such a condition, she would not have stopped in that particular location. ¶ 12. Despite the testimony of Gray and Tiblier, the evidence Anderson has presented, considered in a light most favorable to her, is such that reasonable jurors could potentially reach a verdict in her favor. Therefore, we find the circuit court erred in granting B.H. Acquisition's motion for directed verdict. The jury should have been allowed to determine whether B.H. Acquisition either created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive knowledge that the condition existed on the date of the incident. Thus, on this issue we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.