 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ratcliff v. Rainbow Casino-Vicksburg Partnership11/1/2005
his Court to review.
. We do note, however, that even if the authorities cited by Ratcliff were assumed to be sufficient to overcome the aforementioned procedural bar, we would still decline to impose a standard of strict liability on casinos. Ratcliff argues that casinos are inherently different from other businesses, such as grocery stores, because it is the purpose of a casino to "seduce the invitee to get lost in time and space and to create the 'magical effects' and 'dream-like state'." However, Ratcliff fails to point out the examples that are more on point: bars, movie theaters, museums, musicals, nightclubs, amusement parks, state fairs, etc. All these businesses rely on being able to attract and keep customers entertained for hours. All these businesses employ flashy attractions designed to keep customers riveted. All do so for profit. According to Ratcliff's reasoning, all these businesses should therefore have a standard of strict liability imposed upon them. We see no reason to ignore established Mississippi premises liability law and impose a standard of strict liability on casinos and other similar businesses.
(2) Summary Judgment and Inherent Danger of Stools
. Ratcliff also argues that summary judgment was improperly granted in her case because she presented a genuine issue of material fact regarding the inherent safety of the stools employed by Rainbow. We find this argument is without merit. The stools used by Rainbow were standard stools used not only by numerous casinos, but also by any number of other businesses across the country. Ratcliff claimed in her affidavit that the stools were dangerous in part because they did not have backs and that the other casinos she visited had backed stools. However, Ratcliff herself contradicted this statement in her deposition where she testified as follows:
Q: Do you always go to the Rainbow?
A: No. I sometimes go to Harrahs.
Q: Sometimes Harrahs. Does Harrahs use the same type of stools Rainbow does?
A: I never have looked at the stools down there. I just sat on them. They probably do.
Q: They look about the same?
A: Uh-huh. [Affirmative].
Ratcliff also offered no evidence to substantiate her claim that stools with backs are easier to occupy or have safer legs. No experts were deposed to support Ratcliff's claim that backed stools are safer than backless stools. No evidence was presented as to the actual practices of casinos and other businesses and whether the style of stool that Ratcliff was sitting on is considered to be dangerous.
. More than once Ratcliff alleges, but offered no proof, that Rainbow later replaced the style of stool over which she tripped. Ratcliff does not address the fact that even if she had proof of this, it would be inadmissible at trial under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 407, which bars evidence of subsequent remedial measures when offered to prove negligence. Such evidence is only admissible to prove other facts, such as control, ownership, or feasibility (none of which Ratcliff alleges as an issue). Therefore, we accord little weight to Ratcliff's bare assertion that Rainbow replaced its stools because the previous stools were dangerous.
. Ratcliff also contends that her claim should have gone to a jury because "being carried out of the casino on a gurney after falling and breaking her right hip is conclusive proof that sufficient facts exist for a jury to determine that the casino had not met its obligation to keep its premises reasonably safe." This statement is simply untrue. The mere presence of an injury is not conclusive proof that there are any fact
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.
|
|