Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi; November 26, 2012; Mississippi; State Appellate Court
On August 10, 2009, Mika Fenelon initiated a premises-liability lawsuit against multiple parties, including Jackson Metrocenter Mall Ltd., after an incident on June 3, 2009. Fenelon claimed she suffered injuries after an unidentified male stole her car while she was inspecting a suspected flat tire in the mall's parking lot. The circuit court granted a summary judgment in favor of Metrocenter, determining that Fenelon lacked sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Metrocenter's actions were the proximate cause of her injuries. Fenelon appealed this decision.
The incident occurred after Fenelon had lunch at the mall. While examining her tire with her car running and door open, she was approached by a male who then stole her vehicle. Despite Fenelon's attempt to retrieve the keys, she fell as the car was driven away, resulting in minor injuries and medical expenses of $1,400.
Metrocenter had implemented various security measures, including 72 monitored cameras, uniformed security patrols, and communication among security staff. A security officer observed the suspected thief loitering prior to the incident but was unable to intervene in time. Testimony indicated that the mall was situated in a high-crime area, and security expert Willie Mack argued that inadequate security and untrained staff contributed to Fenelon's injuries, claiming an "atmosphere of violence" made the incident foreseeable. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment, finding no error in the determination that Metrocenter's actions did not proximately cause Fenelon's injuries.
The circuit court determined that Fenelon did not provide sufficient 'probative evidence' to establish proximate cause in her case against Metrocenter, leading to the granting of Metrocenter’s motion for summary judgment. The review of such a decision is de novo, meaning the appellate court examines the matter anew. A summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine issue of material fact, with the burden on the moving party to demonstrate this through evidence like pleadings and affidavits.
Fenelon was classified as an invitee at Metrocenter since she entered the premises for mutual benefit, specifically to have lunch. Consequently, Metrocenter had a duty to maintain a reasonably safe environment and to warn of hidden dangers. This duty extended to the parking lot, where she could foreseeably be injured.
However, the Mississippi Supreme Court has established that foreseeability of injury is crucial for liability, and businesses are not strictly liable for injuries caused by third-party criminal acts. Metrocenter was required to show that its security measures were adequate to protect Fenelon from foreseeable harm. Although Metrocenter provided testimony from security officers about its security measures, it failed to substantiate that these measures met the necessary standard of care, lacking expert testimony or evidence to demonstrate their effectiveness.
Fenelon submitted an affidavit from Mack detailing necessary security measures for Metrocenter, citing the area's violence. Mack identified essential standards, including constant camera monitoring, adequate staffing at strategic locations, roving patrols, and a stationary officer in the parking lot, supported by ASIS International guidelines. The affidavit raised a genuine issue regarding whether Metrocenter breached its duty of care, particularly since Metrocenter failed to provide evidence that these security measures were in place during the incident. While it was acknowledged that a security officer monitored seventy-two cameras, no evidence was presented to show that this was adequate. Additionally, although there were two officers patrolling the parking areas, there was no proof of a security officer stationed in any parking lot.
Despite the genuine issue of material fact concerning breach of duty, the court granted summary judgment because there was no genuine issue regarding proximate causation. The court referenced legal definitions of proximate cause, which include cause in fact and foreseeability. The trial court concluded that the plaintiff lacked sufficient evidence to establish that Metrocenter's actions were a proximate cause of her injuries, affirming that landowners are not insurers of invitee safety but must keep premises reasonably safe and warn of hidden dangers. The court also noted that premises owners are not strictly liable for injuries resulting from criminal acts of third parties, emphasizing the need to prove duty, breach, proximate cause, and damages to establish a premises liability claim.
Plaintiff's response to the Defendants' motion relies on criminal statistics and incident reports to argue that an "atmosphere of violence" made the incident foreseeable to the Metrocenter Defendants. However, to establish proximate cause, Plaintiff must demonstrate both foreseeability and cause in fact. Plaintiff's expert, Willie Mack, suggests several security measures that should have been implemented, including constant monitoring of security cameras, strategic staff positioning, roving patrols, and a security officer in the parking lot. Defendants counter with evidence showing these measures were already in place during the incident, including a security guard monitoring 70 cameras and patrolling officers. Despite recognizing a theft in progress, the response was too late to prevent the incident. Plaintiff and her expert fail to identify any breached standard of care or explain how different security measures could have prevented the theft. Additionally, the expert's generalized claims do not demonstrate proximate cause, aligning with precedents that reject speculative testimony as sufficient to establish causation. Plaintiff's failure to prove causation extends to her claim against Defendant Clarence Evans, Jr., leading to the conclusion that Plaintiff's premises liability action against the Metrocenter Defendants is legally insufficient.
No evidence was presented to establish a causal link between the security measures at the Metrocenter parking lot and the carjacking incident involving Fenelon. Fenelon failed to demonstrate that the crime would not have occurred but for the alleged inadequate security. As a result, the element of foreseeability was deemed irrelevant due to the lack of established cause-in-fact. Consequently, the court deemed it appropriate to grant summary judgment in favor of Metrocenter. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Hinds County was affirmed, with all appeal costs assigned to the appellant. The decision was supported by Judges Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell, and Russell, while Judge Barnes concurred in part without a separate opinion. Judge Irving dissented, joined by Chief Justice Lee and Judge Fair. Metrocenter Mall had engaged Grubb, Ellis Management Services for property management, which in turn contracted Valor Security Services for security services, with SMS Holding as Valor’s holding company, and Clarence Evans Jr. serving as the mall's general manager at the time of the incident. For clarity, these entities and individuals are collectively referred to as 'Metrocenter' in the opinion.
