United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
CARLTON W. REEVES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
The matter is fully briefed and ready for adjudication.
Factual and Procedural History
12, 2015, Carolyn Bratton was shopping for cake mix at the
Walmart in Jackson, Mississippi. As she walked the aisle, she
slipped on a clear substance and fell. This suit followed.
parties agree that a substance on the floor caused
Bratton's fall. They also agree that there is no evidence
Walmart put the substance on the floor. The dispute is
whether Walmart is liable for Bratton's fall because it
knew or should of known about the substance and failed to
clean it up in time.
judgment is appropriate when “the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A party seeking to avoid summary judgment
must identify admissible evidence in the record showing a
fact dispute. Id. at 56(c)(1). “Once a summary
judgment motion is made and properly supported, the nonmovant
must go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts in
the record showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.
Neither ‘conclusory allegations' nor
‘unsubstantiated assertions' will satisfy the
nonmovant's burden.” Wallace v. Tex. Tech
Univ., 80 F.3d 1042, 1047 (5th Cir. 1996) (quotation
marks and citations omitted).
Court views the evidence and draws reasonable inferences in
the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Maddox v.
Townsend and Sons, Inc., 639 F.3d 214, 216 (5th Cir.
2011). But the Court will not, “in the absence of any
proof, assume that the nonmoving party could or would prove
the necessary facts.” McCallum Highlands, Ltd. v.
Wash. Capital Dus, Inc., 66 F.3d 89, 92 (5th Cir. 1995),
as revised on denial of reh'g, 70 F.3d 26 (5th
premises liability law applies to this case. Capital City
Ins. Co. v. Hurst, 632 F.3d 898, 902 (5th Cir. 2011).
Mississippi law is determined by looking to the decisions of
the Mississippi Supreme Court. St. Paul Fire and Marine
Ins. Co. v. Convalescent Servs., Inc., 193 F.3d 340, 342
(5th Cir. 1999).
owners in Mississippi owe business invitees “a duty of
reasonable care in keeping their premises in a reasonably
safe condition.” Pigg v. Express Hotel Partners,
LLC, 991 So.2d 1197, 1199 (Miss. 2008) (citations
omitted). At the same time, “a premises owner is not an
insurer of the safety of invitees.” Id.
the framework for slip and fall cases has been articulated in
different ways,  today's parties acknowledge the
[F]or 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