Richardson v. Grand Casinos of Mississippi, Inc.
Docket: No. 2005-CA-00582-COA
Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi; August 8, 2006; Mississippi; State Appellate Court
Lois Richardson sued Grand Casinos of Mississippi, Gulfport, LLC, for injuries sustained from a fall at the Grand Casino on May 17, 2001, claiming negligence. After discovery, the Grand moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the Harrison County Circuit Court. Richardson appealed, arguing that material issues of fact remained concerning the dangerousness of the stairs and the adequacy of warnings provided. The court affirmed the summary judgment, finding no error. Key facts include that Richardson fell down a small set of stairs upon entering the casino, with a contrasting gray stone floor at the top and multi-colored carpet at the bottom. There were handrails and a warning sign stating “watch your step.” The court noted that the stairs were distinguishable from the surrounding flooring and that the warning sign was of moderate size and likely visible. Richardson's sister confirmed that the stairs were different from the flooring upon entry. No supporting evidence was presented by Richardson to prove the stairs were dangerous. The court emphasized that summary judgment is warranted when no genuine issues of material fact exist, and mere allegations are insufficient to oppose such a motion. For a claim to survive, there must be specific facts showing a genuine issue that could lead to a favorable verdict for the non-moving party. Richardson failed to provide sufficient evidence to support her claim that the steps constituted a dangerous condition, leading to the proper granting of summary judgment. She cited Hill v. Int’l Paper Co. to argue that the presence of handrails and a warning sign indicated the stairs were not reasonably safe, suggesting the Grand was aware of a danger. However, the court disagreed, stating that the addition of a warning sign and handrails made a safe condition even safer and did not render the stairs unreasonably safe. Consequently, since there was no evidence of a dangerous condition, the Grand had no duty to warn Richardson about the steps. The Circuit Court of Harrison County’s judgment is affirmed, with all appeal costs assessed to Richardson. The court clarified that while Richardson framed her concerns as one issue, it was addressed as two separate issues: condition and duty to warn, noting that there were only two steps involved.