In Mississippi, a plaintiff may espouse one of three theories in support of a claim of negligence such as this: (1) that the defendant's own negligence created a dangerous condition which caused plaintiff's injury; (2) that the defendant had actual knowledge of the danger she faced as an invitee or (3) that based upon the passage of time, the defendant should have known about the dangerous condition caused by another party and if defendant had acted reasonably, i.e., constructive knowledge of that condition should be imputed to that defendant. K Mart Corp. v. Hardy ex rel. Hardy, 735 So.2d 975, 980 (Miss. 1999) (citing Downs v.Choo, 656 So.2d 84, 86 (Miss. 1995); Munford, Inc. v.Fleming, 597 So.2d 1282, 1284 (Miss.

Our supreme court has explained that for a case to be reversed on the admission of evidence, “it must result in prejudice and harm or adversely affect a substantial right of a party.” K–Mart Corp. v. Hardy, 735 So.2d 975, 983 (¶ 21) (Miss.1999) (citation omitted). “To apply the harmless[-]error analysis ... [the appellate court] must determine whether the weight of the evidence ... is sufficient to outweigh the harm done by allowing admission of [the] evidence.”

Our supreme court has explained that for a case to be reversed on the admission of evidence, "it must result in prejudice and harm or adversely affect a substantial right of a party." K-Mart Corp. v. Hardy, 735 So. 2d 975, 983 (¶21) (Miss. 1999) (citation omitted). "To apply the harmless[-]error analysis . . . [the appellate court] must determine whether the weight of the evidence . . . is sufficient to outweigh the harm done by allowing admission of [the] evidence."

Leflore County v. Givens, 754 So.2d 1223, 1230 (Miss. 2000) (citing K-Mart Corp. v. Hardy, 735 So.2d 975, 981 (Miss. 1999)). Circumstantial evidence is certainly capable of supporting an inference of negligence under Mississippi law.

For a case to be reversed on the admission or exclusion of evidence, the defendant must show that it resulted in harm and prejudice to a substantial right of the defendant. Cargile, 847 So.2d at 263 (citing K-Mart Corp. v. Hardy ex rel. Hardy, 735 So.2d 975, 983 (Miss. 1999)). ¶ 57.

"That there may be other evidence to the contrary is irrelevant." K-Mart Corp. v. Hardy ex rel Hardy, 735 So.2d 975, 987 (¶ 36) (Miss. 1999); Johnson, 735 So.2d at 236 (¶ 24). (1) Hostile