Background
Glenda Mayze alleged that Park Wind Apartments negligently maintained the walkway connecting her building to the parking lot. A disconnected downspout allegedly sent rainwater onto a depressed section of sidewalk, where water, mud, and debris accumulated. During a dark stormy night in July 2022, Mayze tried to avoid the puddle, stepped beside the sidewalk, and said she slipped on a concealed jagged edge and twisted her right knee.
Mayze had preexisting knee conditions and injuries, including a possible meniscal tear before the apartment incident. After the incident, an MRI showed a torn meniscus and she underwent surgery. A jury found for Mayze. Park Wind sought post-trial relief and appealed, challenging, among other things, the admission of testimony from Kenneth Goodrum as a premises-safety expert.
The Court’s Holding
The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the circuit court prejudicially erred in qualifying Goodrum as a premises-safety expert. Goodrum lacked sufficient knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education concerning premises liability, walking surfaces, or lighting to satisfy Mississippi Rule of Evidence 702.
The Court also held that Goodrum’s method was not based on specialized knowledge or reliable principles and methods. His review of documents, codes, photographs, tenant interviews, and the site—using ordinary tools such as a level and measuring tape—did not require expertise beyond that of a layperson. Because he gave unqualified expert testimony on the ultimate issue, the error was not harmless.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 702 requires both a qualified witness and reliable, specialized methodology.
- Experience in law enforcement and generalized safety work did not establish expertise in premises safety or walking-surface conditions.
- Improper admission of unqualified expert testimony on an ultimate issue required a new trial.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the gatekeeping duty of Mississippi trial courts in premises-liability cases. A witness cannot be qualified as an expert merely by reviewing codes and inspecting a property without demonstrated subject-matter credentials and a reliable specialized methodology.