 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jacox v. Circus Circus of Mississippi7/26/2005
ewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion has been made." Id. "All that is required by a nonmoving party to survive a motion for summary judgment is to establish a genuine issue of material fact by the means available under Miss. R. Civ. P. 56 (c)." Id. (Citing Spartan Foods Systems, Inc. v. American Nat'l Ins. Co., 582 So. 2d 399, 402 (Miss. 1991)).
. Jacox asserts that the trial court erred as a matter of law in determining that he failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence. Much of Jacox's argument on appeal asserts broadly that he has been abused by the forces of our judicial system. Jacox avers, in short, that he suffered a fall in the Gold Strike Casino, that the fall must assuredly be through the fault of Gold Strike, and that he is therefore entitled to $4,000,000 in damages. It seems that, in essence, Jacox seeks to impose a sort of strict liability upon Gold Strike. Jacox repeatedly alludes to the fact that he is not versed in the law, and does not have the resources to compete on fair grounds with a large and "filthy rich" defendant like Gold Strike. He further asserts that Gold Strike sought to dismiss his suit through "legal trickery." Jacox even goes so far as to fault the trial judge for leading and aiding Gold Strike throughout the short duration of his suit.
. Unfortunately for Jacox, bare allegations cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment. The ritualized combat of the courtroom demands that favorable outcomes may be obtained only after meeting clearly established legal and procedural standards. The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that " ro se parties should be held to the same rules of procedure and substantive law as represented parties." Dethlefs v. Beau Maison Development Corp., 511 So. 2d 112, 118 (Miss. 1987). We simply may not rely upon unsupported, conclusory allegations to defeat a motion for summary judgment where there are no issues of material fact. See Richardson v. Oldham, 12 F. 3d 1373, 1378-79 (5th Cir. 1994) (affidavits in opposition to summary judgment that contain conclusions or conjecture not based on personal knowledge and insufficient factual specificity are not competent summary judgment evidence); Forsyth v. Barr, 19 F. 3d 1527, 1533 (5th Cir. 1994) (unsubstantiated assertions are not competent summary judgment evidence); Krim v. BancTexas Group, Inc.,989 F.2d 1435, 1449 (5th Cir. 1993) (if the nonmoving party rests merely upon conclusory allegations, improbable inferences and unsupported speculation, summary judgment may be appropriate).
. Under Mississippi law, an operator of a business premise owes a duty to an invitee to exercise reasonable care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Jerry Lee's Grocery, Inc. V. Thompson, 528 So. 2d 293, 295 (Miss. 1998); Munford, Inc. v. Fleming, 597 So. 2d 1282, 1284 (Miss. 1992). However, the operator of a business is not an insurer against all injuries. Munford, 597 So. 2d at 1284. "Proof merely of the occurrence of a fall on a floor within a business is insufficient to show negligence on the part of the proprietor . . . and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable in cases of this kind." Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Tisdale, 185 So. 2d 916, 917 (Miss. 1966). To prove that the operator was negligent, the plaintiff must show either (1) that the operator caused the dangerous condition, or, (2) if the dangerous condition was caused by a third person unconnected with the store operation, that the operator had either actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition. MunfordI, 597 So. 2d at 1284; Waller v. Dixieland Food Stores Inc., 492 So. 2d 283, 285 (Miss. 1986).
. Constructive knowledge is established by proof
Page 1 2 3 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|