reasonably safe, and (2) whether the owner warned of hidden dangers of which the owner knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known. Mayfield v. The Hairbender, 903 So.2d 733, 738 (Miss.2005). The breach of either duty supports a claim of negligence. Id. ¶ 7. Mrs. Pigg claims that the loosely-attached mirror constituted a hidden, dangerous condition, and that the Holiday Inn knew, or reasonably should have known, of the danger, but failed to warn of it. She further contends that, by not properly inspecting and repairing the mirror, Holiday Inn failed in its duty to keep its premises in a reasonably safe condition. ¶ 8. To survive summary judgment, Mrs. Pigg must produce more than evidence of an injury. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Tisdale, 185 So.2d 916, 917 (Miss.1966) (<HOLDING>). She claims she met this burden by proffering
holding that the basis of liability is negligence and not injury holding that an injury is not within the scope of employment after the employee has left work unless the injury was caused by the employers negligence holding that a negligence claim is not a personal injury tort claim holding that negligence must be the proximate cause of injury recognizing that injury is a prerequisite to liability