 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ratcliff v. Rainbow Casino-Vicksburg Partnership11/1/2005
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED: 11/01/2005
EN BANC.
. Sarah Ratcliff sustained injuries when she fell at the Rainbow Casino in Vicksburg, Mississippi, and consequently sued Rainbow for her injuries. At the completion of discovery, the court below granted Rainbow's motion for summary judgment. Feeling aggrieved, Ratcliff appeals, arguing that (1) Mississippi should hold casinos to a higher standard of care than other businesses, (2) the stool she tripped over was inherently dangerous or, (3) in the alternative, Mississippi should adopt a requirement that all premises liability claims must go to a jury.
. Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
. Ratcliff was gambling at the Rainbow Casino in Vicksburg on March 13, 2001, when she tripped over a stool and fell, breaking her hip. Ratcliff was seventy years old at the time of the accident and had been sitting on the same stool for five or six hours, taking breaks only to cash in her tickets or to use the restroom. Ratcliff consequently sued Rainbow Casino for damages, alleging that Rainbow was negligent in not providing a reasonably safe premises. After discovery, the court below granted Rainbow's motion for summary judgment.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
. We employ a de novo standard when reviewing a lower court's grant of summary judgment. McMillan v. Rodriguez, 823 So. 2d 1173, 1176-77 ( ) (Miss. 2002). All evidence in the record will be viewed in a light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment has been entered. Id. Summary judgment will only be affirmed where the non-moving party fails to present any genuine issue of material fact. Id. The burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact rests on the moving party. Id.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES
(1) The Standard of Care Owed by Casinos
. Ratcliff urges this Court to find that casinos should be held to a higher standard of care than other businesses. The current standard of care owed by casinos is "to keep the premises reasonably safe, and when not reasonably safe to warn only where there is hidden danger or peril that is not in plain and open view." McGovern v. Scarborough, 566 So. 2d 1225, 1228 (Miss. 1990). This standard applies not only to casinos, but to all business owners. Although numerous Mississippi cases have applied this standard to casinos, Ratcliff urges this Court to adopt a new strict liability standard for casinos. Under this standard, a casino would be liable for any injury suffered by its patrons, regardless of fault. Ratcliff believes casinos should be held to this higher standard because of the "physical and psychological manipulation of the casino environment."
. We decline to apply a new standard of strict liability to casinos. Ratcliff has provided no authority to support her argument that strict liability should be applied to casinos. No Mississippi case has ever applied strict liability to a casino. Ratcliff cites a passage from the Restatement Second of Torts that is not directly on point, two dissenting opinions, and other cases that state only the current standard of care owed by casinos. None of these sources provide support for this Court to apply a standard of strict liability to casinos. Under Mississippi law, "failure to cite case law in support of an argument precludes this Court from considering the assignment of error on appeal." Farm Services, Inc. v. Oktibbeha County Bd. of Supervisors, 860 So. 2d 804, 810 ( ) (Miss. 2003) (citing Hewlett v. State, 607 So. 2d 1097, 1107 (Miss. 1992)). Therefore, Ratcliff has not presented a valid argument for t
Page 1 2 3 4 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|