OWENS v. BOYD BILOXI LLC (2025)

¶1. Marvis S. Owens filed a premises-liability lawsuit against Boyd Biloxi LLC in the Harrison County Circuit Court. Owens alleged that Boyd Biloxi's negligence in maintaining its premises in a reasonably safe manner proximately caused the injuries he sustained after slipping on water in front of the casino's lobby elevators. The circuit court granted Boyd Biloxi's motion for summary judgment after finding that Owens failed to show the casino had actual or constructive knowledge of the water's presence on the lobby floor. On appeal, Owens challenges the circuit court's determination that he provided insufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact to survive summary judgment. Finding no error, we affirm the circuit court's final judgment granting summary judgment in favor of Boyd Biloxi.

FACTS

¶2. Around lunchtime on July 17, 2022, Owens visited the second floor of Boyd Biloxi's casino to place a bet. After placing his bet, Owens remained on the casino's premises to watch a baseball game on television. He then left the casino around 3 p.m. to pick up his child from daycare. At some point after 5 p.m., Owens returned to the casino. He entered the casino's lobby from the parking garage and approached the lobby elevators. Owens testified that he did not see any water on the lobby floor as he approached the elevators. Owens observed other guests walking around the lobby, including several individuals wearing swimsuits. He stated, however, that he could not recall if any of the swimsuit-clad guests were actually wet, and he could not remember anyone mentioning the presence of water on the floor.

¶3. Owens entered an elevator and proceeded to the second floor, where he had placed his earlier bet. Owens placed additional bets before preparing to leave Boyd Biloxi's premises. Owens testified that about ten to fifteen minutes had elapsed between the time he parked his vehicle to enter the casino and when he prepared to leave the casino and return to his vehicle. When returning to the first floor, Owens used the same bank of elevators that he had used on his way to the second floor. As Owens exited the elevator onto the first-floor lobby, he fell. Owens stated that nothing blocked his view of the lobby floor as he exited the elevator and that he saw no water on the floor prior to his fall.

¶4. As he stood up from his fall, Owens noticed that he had “a little water on [him].” Owens went back upstairs and reported his fall to a security officer. He told the security officer that “there was a wet spot” on the lobby floor by the elevators. Upon returning to the area where he had fallen, Owens took photos and a video of the lobby floor in front of the elevators. Owens stated that he did not know if anyone else had walked through that part of the lobby between when he fell and when he returned to document the water on the floor.

¶5. After a hearing, the circuit court found that Owens had presented no evidence to show that Boyd Biloxi was responsible for the water on the floor of the lobby or that Boyd Biloxi had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition. As a result, the circuit court concluded that no genuine issues of material fact existed to preclude summary judgment and that Boyd Biloxi was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The circuit court therefore granted summary judgment in favor of Boyd Biloxi and dismissed with prejudice Owens's claims against the casino. Aggrieved, Owens appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶6. “We review an order granting summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Morgan v. Riverboat Corp. of Miss., 395 So. 3d 1026, 1029 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2024). Summary judgment is proper “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.” Id. (quoting M.R.C.P. 56(c)). A party responding to a summary judgment motion “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in Rule 56, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. at (¶8) (quoting M.R.C.P. 56(e)). If “the non-moving party has failed to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to the party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial[,]” then “[s]ummary judgment is appropriate ․” Id. (quoting Buckel v. Chaney, 47 So. 3d 148, 153 (¶10) (Miss. 2010)).

DISCUSSION

¶7. “In all negligence cases, ‘the plaintiff must show duty, breach, causation, and damages.’ ” Id. at 1030 (¶9) (quoting Clinton Healthcare LLC v. Atkinson, 294 So. 3d 66, 71 (¶9) (Miss. 2019)). No dispute exists that Owens was an invitee on Boyd Biloxi's premises and that the casino owed Owens “the duty 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.” Rhodes v. RL Stratton Props. LLC, 376 So. 3d 385, 389 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2023). “[M]ere proof that an invitee was injured while on the premises is insufficient to establish liability.” Morgan, 395 So. 3d at 1030 (¶9) (internal quotation marks omitted).

¶8. Boyd Biloxi does not challenge Owens's argument that the presence of water on its lobby floor could constitute a dangerous condition. Rather, Boyd Biloxi contends that it lacked actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition. Thus, to succeed on his claim against the casino, Owens must show that Boyd Biloxi not only had actual or constructive notice of water on its lobby floor but also “an opportunity to correct the dangerous condition.” Anderson v. SW Gaming LLC, 387 So. 3d 99, 106 (¶30) (Miss. Ct. App. 2024) (quoting Thomas v. Boyd Biloxi LLC, 360 So. 3d 204, 214 (¶36) (Miss. 2023)).

¶9. Despite his claims on appeal, Owens has failed to establish how the water came to be on the lobby floor, the length of time the water was on the floor, or that Boyd Biloxi knew about the water prior to his fall. Owens conceded that he did “not know who or what caused the water to be on the floor.” Although he noticed people wearing swimsuits as he approached the lobby elevators to travel to the second floor, he admitted that he could not recall if any of these people were actually wet. In addition, Owens stated that he noticed the water on the lobby floor only after he slipped on his return trip to his vehicle. Owens presented no other witnesses, and he provided only photos and video of the water on the lobby floor that he took after reporting his fall to a casino security officer. Owens therefore could not establish through either his own testimony or any other evidence offered that a Boyd Biloxi employee negligently caused the water to be on the lobby floor or that the casino had actual knowledge of the water's presence before his fall. As a result, we conclude that Owens failed to create any genuine issue of material fact as to whether the casino possessed actual knowledge of a dangerous condition and had sufficient time to warn invitees of the condition. See id.; Rhodes, 376 So. 3d at 389 (¶11).

¶10. We further conclude the record lacks any evidence to establish that the casino had constructive notice of the water on its lobby floor. As we explained in Anderson,

[c]onstructive knowledge is present where, based on the length of time that the condition existed, the operator exercising reasonable care should have known of its presence. To establish constructive knowledge, [the plaintiff] must produce admissible evidence of the length of time that the hazard existed. In this regard, the court will indulge no presumptions to compensate for any deficiencies in the plaintiff's evidence as to the time period.

Anderson, 387 So. 3d at 107 (¶35) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

¶11. As previously discussed, Owens failed to provide testimony or evidence to establish the length of time the water was on the lobby floor. Although Owens testified that about ten to fifteen minutes passed between the time he entered an elevator to go to the casino's second floor and when he exited the same bank of elevators to return to his vehicle, he also admitted that he did not actually see water on the lobby floor prior to his fall. As a result, “[w]e find there is simply no evidence of a time frame sufficient to impute constructive notice of the water on the [lobby] floor to [Boyd Biloxi].” Id. at (¶36). We likewise find there is no record evidence to show that the casino had sufficient time or opportunity to remedy the condition before Owens fell.

CONCLUSION

¶12. Because Owens failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the casino had actual or constructive notice of the water on its lobby floor and sufficient time to warn of or remedy the condition, we affirm the circuit court's final judgment granting summary judgment in favor of Boyd Biloxi.

¶13. AFFIRMED.

WEDDLE, J., FOR THE COURT:

BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND WILSON, P.JJ., WESTBROOKS, McDONALD, LAWRENCE, McCARTY, EMFINGER AND ST. PÉ, JJ., CONCUR.