Introduction

On 26 June 2025 the Supreme Court of Mississippi issued a consequential opinion in City of Jackson, Mississippi and Jackson Public School District v. LaQuita Maxie, reversing the circuit court’s denial of summary judgment and rendering judgment in favor of the City of Jackson (“the City”) and the Jackson Public School District (“JPS”). The case arose from injuries allegedly suffered by M.Y., a ninth-grade student, who fell into an uncovered manhole on Wingfield High School’s lawn during homecoming celebrations. The litigation squarely presented two recurring issues under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (“MTCA”): (1) what quantum of evidence a plaintiff must produce to establish that a governmental entity had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition, and (2) whether discretionary-function immunity shields governmental defendants for alleged failures in maintenance or inspection. By ruling that mere allegations—unaccompanied by admissible evidence—are insufficient to survive summary judgment, the Court tightened the evidentiary threshold for constructive notice and refined the application of discretionary-function immunity in premises-liability suits against public entities.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court conducted a de novo review and concluded that Maxie had produced no evidence—documentary, testimonial, or expert— showing that either the City or JPS (i) owned or controlled the manhole, (ii) created the hazard, or (iii) had actual or constructive notice of the hazard with sufficient time to correct or warn. Because notice is an essential element of liability under MTCA §11-46-9(1)(v), failure to create a genuine factual dispute warranted summary judgment. The Court further held that leaving a manhole uncovered is not the type of policy-laden decision protected by discretionary-function immunity, but that issue became moot once it found Maxie’s proof of notice fatally deficient. Accordingly, the Court:

• REVERSED the trial court’s order denying summary judgment;
• RENDERED judgment for the City and JPS; and
• Reaffirmed that non-movants may not rely on pleadings or conjecture to avoid summary judgment under Rule 56.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Wilcher v. Lincoln Cty. Bd. of Supervisors, 243 So. 3d 177 (Miss. 2018) – Provided the controlling two-part public-policy-function test for discretionary-function immunity. The trial court had relied on Wilcher, but the Supreme Court found immunity analysis unnecessary after resolving the notice issue.
• City of Jackson v. Locklar, 431 So. 2d 475 (Miss. 1983) – Long-standing authority that a municipality’s liability for a street defect requires proof of actual or constructive knowledge. Cited to reinforce that notice is indispensable.
• Stuckey v. Provident Bank, 912 So. 2d 859 (Miss. 2005) – Emphasized summary-judgment procedure as a means to “root out mere accusation and conjecture.” Used to explain why Maxie’s reliance on pleadings was inadequate.
• Anderson v. Wiggins, 331 So. 3d 1 (Miss. 2020); Gorman-Rupp Co. v. Hall, 908 So. 2d 749 (Miss. 2005); and other Rule-56 authorities – Restated burden-shifting and the necessity of record evidence.
• Mississippi Court of Appeals cases (Hawkins, Serrano, Clein, Howard, Hodges, Jenkins) – All illustrate dismissal where plaintiffs failed to prove notice of dangerous conditions.

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Burden on Summary Judgment. Defendants, as movants, bore the initial burden to demonstrate absence of a genuine factual dispute. They satisfied it by submitting an affidavit from the City’s 311 manager confirming no complaints about an open manhole from 2019-2021, and by highlighting the total absence of incident reports, photos, or witness statements.
2. Failure of Proof by Plaintiff. Once the burden shifted, Maxie produced only the complaint and argument. The Court reiterated Rule 56’s directive that pleadings alone are insufficient; specific facts via affidavits, depositions, or documents are required.
3. Statutory Requirement of Notice. MTCA §11-46-9(1)(v) grants immunity if a dangerous condition was not caused by a government employee and the entity lacked actual or constructive notice plus “adequate opportunity” to protect or warn. Constructive notice in Mississippi requires proof that the condition existed for such a length of time that the entity should have discovered it in the exercise of reasonable care. No temporal evidence was proffered.
4. Discretionary-Function Immunity (Addressed but Deemed Moot). The trial court had denied immunity, ruling that leaving a manhole uncovered involved no social-economic policy choice. The Supreme Court implicitly agreed but found it unnecessary to decide because the plaintiff’s claim failed at the threshold element of notice.

C. Potential Impact

The opinion crystallizes two practical rules for litigants and courts:

• Rule 56 Rigor in MTCA Premises Cases. Plaintiffs must marshal tangible evidence of constructive notice—such as maintenance logs, prior complaints, photographs showing weathering or long-standing defects, or expert opinions on the age of the hazard—before the close of discovery. Failure will result in dismissal.
• Narrowing of “Inspection-Based” Constructive Notice Arguments. The Court rejected the contention that a governmental entity “should have known” merely because periodic inspections are generally expected. Plaintiffs must connect inspection protocols to the specific hazard and timeframe to create a fact issue.

Future plaintiffs suing Mississippi governmental entities for premises defects will likely face heightened scrutiny at the summary-judgment stage. Defendants, in turn, are incentivized to maintain clear maintenance records and to file early summary-judgment motions supported by affidavits negating notice.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA)

A statute waiving sovereign immunity for Mississippi governmental entities in limited circumstances and establishing procedural and substantive requirements for suing them.

Actual vs. Constructive Notice

Actual notice means the entity actually knew of the dangerous condition through reports or observation. Constructive notice means the condition existed long enough, or was so obvious, that the entity would have discovered it through reasonable care.

Summary Judgment (Rule 56)

A procedural device allowing the court to decide a case without trial when no genuine dispute of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The non-movant must respond with evidence, not just allegations.

Discretionary-Function Immunity

Protection for governmental actions involving policy decisions that balance social, economic, or political considerations. Routine maintenance lapses generally fall outside this immunity.

Premises Liability

The body of law holding landowners or occupiers liable for hazardous conditions on their property when they knew or should have known of the danger and failed to remedy or warn.

Conclusion

City of Jackson & JPS v. Maxie does not revolutionize Mississippi tort law, but it powerfully reinforces an existing precept: evidentiary proof of notice is indispensable in MTCA premises-liability suits. The decision cautions plaintiffs that discovery must yield concrete evidence, not speculation, to survive summary judgment. It also reassures governmental defendants that meticulous record-keeping and early motions practice can effectively terminate meritless claims. As such, the opinion will reverberate in Mississippi trial courts, making it the go-to citation when parties dispute whether constructive notice has been adequately established.