Venture, Inc. v. Harris

• Citation: 307 So.3d 427
• Decision Date: 17 December 2020
• Docket Number: NO. 2019-IA-01498-SCT,2019-IA-01498-SCT
• Parties: VENTURE, INC. d/b/a Save-A-Lot v. Mattie HARRIS
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi

307 So.3d 427

VENTURE, INC. d/b/a Save-A-Lot

v.Mattie HARRIS

NO. 2019-IA-01498-SCT

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

December 17, 2020

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: ROY A. SMITH, JR., R. BRANTLEY ADAMS, Jackson

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: ABBY ROBINSON, Jackson

BEFORE RANDOLPH, C.J., COLEMAN AND CHAMBERLIN, JJ.

CHAMBERLIN, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶1. This case comes before the Court on interlocutory appeal. Mattie Harris filed a premises-liability action against Venture, Inc., d/b/a/ Save-A-Lot after Harris allegedly tripped over the base of a temporary iron display rack while shopping at the Save-A-Lot grocery store. Harris claims that Venture created a dangerous condition on the premises by placing a temporary iron display rack on the edge of a shopping aisle so that the base and the legs of the display rack protruded into the aisle and obstructed the walking clearance of customers. Harris claimed that Venture negligently maintained the premises by creating a dangerous condition on the premises and failed to warn invitees of the condition. The dangerous condition, Harris claimed, was the proximate cause of her fall and the resulting injuries.

¶2. Harris filed for summary judgment, and Venture filed a motion to stay proceedings on Harris's motion under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) until the parties could complete the discovery process. Venture later filed its own motion for summary judgment. After the Hinds County County Court conducted a hearing on the parties’ motions, it granted Harris's motion for partial summary judgment as to the issue of liability and denied Venture's Rule 56(f) motion and motion for summary judgment. Aggrieved, Venture sought interlocutory appeal and asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by denying its Rule 56(f) motion and by granting Harris's motion for summary judgment. Venture further asserts that the trial court erred by denying its motion for summary judgment because no unreasonably dangerous condition existed on the premises. This Court granted interlocutory appeal.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶3. On October 9, 2018, a seventy-eight year-old Mattie Harris was grocery shopping at Save-A-Lot in Jackson, Mississippi, and claimed to have tripped over a temporary iron display rack holding Prego spaghetti sauce at the end of the spices and juices aisle of the store.

¶4. On January 4, 2019, Harris filed suit against Venture, alleging that Venture had been negligent in placing the display rack in the walking space of the aisle. In her complaint, Harris claimed that Venture owed a duty to protect its invitees from hazardous conditions in its store, that Venture breached that duty by allowing the display rack to be placed in the walking space of the aisle and that the negligent placement of the rack caused her to trip and fall, resulting in her experiencing severe side and back pain from broken ribs, a fractured arm and elbow, emotional distress, depression, humiliation, embarrassment and pain and suffering.

¶5. On February 4, 2019, Venture answered Harris's complaint, denying all liability and asserting that Harris's own negligence was the proximate cause of her fall and the resulting injuries. Over the next few months, the parties conducted discovery via interrogatories and requests for production. Venture claims that several of Harris's responses to its discovery requests were improper, incomplete and withheld discoverable information. On April 9, 2019, Venture's counsel reached out to Harris's counsel in order to schedule a time to take Harris's deposition, but due to scheduling conflicts, the parties were unable to schedule Harris's deposition. On May 1, 2019, Venture requested supplementation of the information that Harris had withheld in her responses to Venture's requests for discovery. Harris did not respond to Venture's request for supplementation.

¶6. On May 14, 2019, Harris moved for summary judgment. On May 22, 2019, Venture filed a motion to hold Harris's motion for summary judgment in abeyance so that the parties could complete discovery under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f). Venture did not submit any affidavits along with its Rule 56(f) motion, but within its motion, Venture asserted that it could not defend its position against Harris's motion without obtaining information that Harris withheld during discovery or without deposing Harris. Within its Rule 56(f) motion, Venture also outlined the steps it had taken in order to gain access to the information that it alleged was in the exclusive possession of Harris.

¶7. On June 5, 2019, noting that Harris had not yet noticed her motion for partial summary judgment for a hearing, Venture filed its own motion for summary judgment based on the information it had available to it at the time. Venture attached the affidavit of the Save-A-Lot store manager to its motion for summary judgment and also submitted the footage of the incident that was recorded on the store's security cameras along with its motion for summary judgment.

¶8. The trial court conducted a motion hearing on September 5, 2019, to address both parties’ motions for summary judgment and Venture's motion for a continuance. On September 9, 2019, the trial court entered its order granting Harris partial summary judgment as to the issue of liability and denying both of Venture's motions. At the hearing, the judge stated that she found that "there was an obstructive rack that is sticking out into the aisle at the store; that the plaintiff fell in the immediate area of this same rack; and the trier of fact may reasonably conclude that the rack caused the fall of the plaintiff." The judge concluded the hearing by stating that she found "that there are no genuine issues of fact to be determined as far as this matter is concerned, and the plaintiff's partial summary judgment is hereby awarded on the issue of liability." The trial court's written order granting Harris's motion for partial summary judgment stated that

The Court after hearing arguments and considering the pleadings as filed, finds that Defendant[’]s Prego Sauce Rack, the subject of this lawsuit, was obstructive, in that Plaintiff fell in the immediate area of the rack. The Court further holds that a trier of facts suggest [sic] that the rack caused Plaintiff's fall.

¶9. Aggrieved by the trial court's decision, Venture sought, and this Court granted, interlocutory appeal regarding the trial court's granting of Harris's motion for partial summary judgment, its denying Venture's motion for summary judgment and its denying Venture's Rule 56(f) motion.

¶10. Because we find that both parties’ motions for summary judgment should have been denied by the trial court and because we remand the case for a trial on its merits, we decline to address the trial court's ruling on Venture's Rule 56(f) motion.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶11. "We review the grant [or denial] of summary judgment de novo and will view evidence ‘in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion has been made.’ " Renner v. Retzer Res., Inc. , 236 So. 3d 810, 814 (Miss. 2017) (quoting Karpinsky v. Am. Nat'l Ins. Co. , 109 So. 3d 84, 88 (Miss. 2013) ). "This Court has held that if the trial court applies the wrong legal standard, the review of the ruling is de novo." Quitman Cnty. v. State , 910 So. 2d 1032, 1035 (Miss. 2005) (citing Baker v. State , 802 So. 2d 77, 80 (Miss. 2001) ). "This Court has also stated ‘where ... the trial judge has applied an erroneous legal standard, we should not hesitate to reverse.’ " Id. (quoting McClendon v. State , 539 So. 2d 1375, 1377 (Miss. 1989) ). But, this Court has also "stated that ‘we will not reverse a lower court's decision where the court reaches the right conclusion although for the wrong reason.’ " HWCC-Tunica, Inc. v. Miss. Dep't of Revenue. , 296 So. 3d 668, 681 (Miss. 2020) (quoting Briggs v. Benjamin , 467 So. 2d 932, 934 (Miss. 1985) ).

DISCUSSION

¶12. The issues raised in this appeal are the trial court's granting Harris's motion for partial summary judgment as to the issue of Venture's liability and the trial court's denying Venture's motion for summary judgment. Because of the nature of this case and for the sake of efficiency, we will analyze the parties’ motions for summary judgment together.

I. Summary Judgment Standard

¶13. In its appeal, Venture argues that the trial court applied an erroneous standard of review when considering the parties’ individual motions for summary judgment. We agree with Venture's assertion here and find that the trial court applied an erroneous standard to the motions for summary judgment.

¶14. "This Court will review a trial court's grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment de novo." Double Quick, Inc. v. Moore , 73 So. 3d 1162, 1165 (Miss. 2011) (citing Titus v. Williams , 844 So. 2d 459, 464 (Miss. 2003) ). Summary judgment is appropriate when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Miss. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

¶15. "The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion has been made. If, in this view, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment should be entered in his favor. Otherwise, the motion should be denied." Moore , 73 So. 3d at 1165 (citing Titus , 844 So. 2d at 464 ). The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Johnson v. Pace , 122 So. 3d 66, 68 (Miss. 2013) (citing Tucker v. Hinds Cnty. , 558 So. 2d 869, 872 (Miss. 1990) ). "This Court has continuously held ... ‘the court cannot try issues of fact on a Rule 56 motion; it may only determine whether there are issues to be tried.’ " Evan Johnson & Sons Constr., Inc. v. State , 877 So. 2d 360, 365 (Miss. 2004) (quoting Grisham v. John Q....