Fugler v. Bank of Brookhaven

• Decision Date: 10 May 2022
• Docket Number: 2021-CA-00303-COA
• Parties: Jimmie FUGLER and Chuck Fugler, Appellants v. BANK OF BROOKHAVEN, Appellee
• Court: Mississippi Court of Appeals

338 So.3d 134

Jimmie FUGLER and Chuck Fugler, Appellants

v.BANK OF BROOKHAVEN, Appellee

NO. 2021-CA-00303-COA

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

May 10, 2022

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: KATHRYN CAROLINE BOYD

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: SCOTT TIMOTHY ELLZEY, DRURY SUMNER HOLLAND, Gulfport

BEFORE WILSON, P.J., McDONALD AND SMITH, JJ.

SMITH, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Jimmie and Chuck Fugler filed a premises-liability lawsuit against the Bank of Brookhaven (the Bank) after Jimmie tripped and fell on a floor mat as she entered the Bank. Following a hearing on the Bank's motion for summary judgment, the Lincoln County Circuit Court determined that no genuine issues of material fact existed and that the Bank was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Upon review of the Fuglers' appeal from the circuit court's judgment, we find no error and affirm the circuit court's grant of summary judgment to the Bank.

FACTS

¶2. On March 21, 2017, Jimmie and Chuck stopped by the Bank to exchange three rolls of quarters for dollar bills. Chuck remained in the couple's vehicle while Jimmie walked toward the Bank with the rolls of quarters in her hand. Jimmie testified that as she entered the Bank, she tripped over a rubber floor mat positioned in front of the Bank's door. Jimmie stated that she fell into the Bank's door with her head and body and sustained injuries to her head

, left elbow, and right hand. Jimmie testified that as far as she was aware, no one else witnessed her fall. Chuck confirmed that he did not personally observe Jimmie's fall from inside the couple's vehicle. Jimmie also confirmed during her deposition that she had no actual knowledge of the floor mat's condition prior to her fall. According to Jimmie, she did not even notice the floor mat in front of the Bank's door prior to her fall, and she stated it was only after her fall that she observed a corner of the mat upturned. Jimmie further confirmed that she had no evidence to show how the mat's corner might have become upturned or to show the length of time, if any, that the mat's corner was upturned prior to her fall.

¶3. On September 27, 2018, the Fuglers filed a premises-liability suit against the Bank. The Fuglers alleged the Bank knew or should have known about the condition of the floor mat and that the mat presented a danger to customers. Further, the Fuglers asserted that the Bank failed to correct or prevent the hazardous condition of the floor mat or to display any warning signs regarding the mat. In addition to asserting a claim of negligence against the Bank, the Fuglers raised claims of negligent training and supervision, loss of consortium, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Bank answered the complaint and asserted various affirmative defenses to the Fuglers' claims.

¶4. As the Bank's designated corporate representative, Shannon Aker provided an affidavit during discovery. Aker stated that he had worked at the Bank since its opening in January 2000 and had served as the Bank's president for about five years. According to Aker, about three hundred customers entered the Bank on a daily basis. Prior to Jimmie's fall, Aker averred "there had never been an incident involving a person allegedly tripping over a floor mat at [the] Bank[,]" and the Bank had never before "received any complaints and was never made aware of any problems, issues, or hazards regarding floor mats on its property." Aker stated the Bank was unaware of anyone who had "observed the subject floor mat allegedly turned or curled up prior to the subject incident" and had no knowledge of the mat being turned up prior to Jimmie's fall. Moreover, even if the floor mat had been turned up prior to Jimmie's fall, Aker avowed that the Bank had "no knowledge regarding the length of time it was allegedly in such condition." Aker further stated that based on the placement of the Bank's interior and exterior cameras, none of the cameras captured footage of the incident.

¶5. The parties also deposed Aker, who reiterated the statements made in his affidavit. As in his affidavit, Aker testified that no issues regarding the floor mats had ever arisen prior to Jimmie's fall, and he stated that no one had ever before informed him that a corner of the mats had become upturned. Aker testified that he and other employees constantly monitored the Bank's floors and entryway to keep the premises neat and orderly, and he maintained that the floor mat at issue was as secure as it could reasonably be. Aker testified that he was unaware of there ever having been a need to press down the floor mats or to fix the corners of the mats. According to Aker, the mat was "a heavy-duty commercial mat that stays flat. It's rubberized on the bottom and carpet on the top.... [W]e replace them every year. So we don't let them wear [out]." Based on the experience and knowledge he had gained in his almost twenty years of working at the Bank, Aker strongly disputed the Fuglers' claim that the corner of the floor mat at issue could have become upturned prior to Jimmie's fall.

¶6. On August 17, 2020, the Bank moved for summary judgment under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The Bank asserted Jimmie had failed to establish that the Bank caused the floor mat to be turned up or possessed actual or constructive knowledge of the floor mat's alleged condition prior to Jimmie's fall. Arguing that no disputed issues of material fact existed, the Bank maintained it was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

¶7. Following a hearing on the Bank's summary-judgment motion, the circuit court entered its order on February 22, 2021. The circuit court concluded the Fuglers had failed to allege any set of facts to establish that (1) "the [B]ank's negligence created [a] curl in the corner of the [floor mat]"; (2) "the [B]ank had actual knowledge that a curl in the corner of the [floor mat] existed prior to [Jimmie's] fall"; or (3) "a curl had been in the corner of the [floor mat] for a period of time sufficient to impute knowledge of the condition to the [B]ank." Thus, even viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the Fuglers, the circuit court found that no genuine issues of material fact existed and that the Bank was entitled to a grant of summary judgment. Aggrieved by the circuit court's judgment, the Fuglers appeal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶8. We review the circuit court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Green v. Supermkt. Operations Inc. , 330 So. 3d 434, 437 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021). Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." M.R.C.P. 56(c). "The moving party bears the burden to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists, and the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant." Yoakum v. Smith (In re Est. of Yoakum) , 311 So. 3d 686, 689 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) (quoting Wright v. R.M. Smith...