Baldwin County Hosp. Authority v. Martinez
Decision Date | 22 June 1992 |
Docket Number | No. A92A0443,A92A0443 |
Citation | 420 S.E.2d 760,204 Ga.App. 840 |
Parties | BALDWIN COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY v. MARTINEZ. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Jones, Cork & Miller, Macon, Timothy Harden, III, Brunswick, W. Kerry Howell, Macon, for appellant.
Shane M. Geeter, Milledgeville, for appellee.
Baldwin County Hospital, pursuant to the grant of its application for interlocutory appeal, contends that denial of its motion for summary judgment was error.
Dr. Martinez, who had been on the staff of the hospital at that same location for 27 years, was injured when he tripped in the staff parking lot on October 1, 1988. He sued, alleging that he tripped over "cement covered with asphalt ... which was the same dark color as the surrounding surface to the parking lot." There were two access doors from the staff parking lot into the hospital. One, which was generally used by Dr. Martinez, opened into the medical records department and he regularly stopped there to review charts. The other went by the office of the administrator. Dr. Martinez could not recall when he had used that door, although he was aware of its existence and availability to him. When he was injured, Dr. Martinez had exited through the administrator's door and stepped off the concrete stoop to the side, between two upright posts, instead of stepping directly to the front and off the stoop. As he was exiting, he was speaking to Ms. Stuckey, a nurse who was entering the building as he was leaving. Dr. Martinez stated that the "asphalt made the cement underneath covered up with a dark color." With this dark color, Dr. Martinez stated that he could not have discovered it through the exercise of ordinary care.
The hospital moved for summary judgment, contending there was no dispute of material fact, that the defect was patent and obvious if, as alleged by the hospital, it was white against the black asphalt, or, in the alternative, was not known to the hospital and, therefore, the hospital breached no duty to Dr. Martinez if it was covered by asphalt like the rest of the lot, as alleged by Dr. Martinez.
As conceded below and here by the hospital, there is a dispute of fact as to the nature of the material over which Dr. Martinez tripped. Dr. Martinez alleged and deposed that there were "two balls" of cement covered with asphalt that made the cement the same dark color and blended in. The remaining witnesses, however, stated that the irregularity in the lot was some white cement that was clearly visible on the black asphalt. Ms. Stuckey, the nurse to whom Dr. Martinez had spoken immediately before falling, stated this and that she had tripped over the white concrete bumps several times previously. On October 3, 1988, one of the hospital engineers, Mr. Allen, removed two "clearly visible spots of white concrete" from the staff parking lot at the direction of a hospital representative.
Willis v. Allen, 188 Ga.App. 390, 391, 373 S.E.2d 79 (1988).
Here, the hospital contends that, whichever version of the bumps in the parking lot is considered, as a matter of law, it is entitled to recover.
The existence of a dispute of fact under such circumstances will not necessarily preclude summary judgment. Chelena v. Ga. Fed. Savings etc., Ass'n, 256 Ga. 336, 337, 349 S.E.2d 180 (1986). Here, the nature of the lump is not a material fact because under either factual scenario, the hospital was entitled to summary judgment. Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Gresham, 260 Ga. 391, 392(4), 394 S.E.2d 345 (1990); Chelena, supra.
" ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Norman v. Jones Lang Lasalle Americas, Inc.
...she must show that their knowledge of the hazard that caused her injuries was superior to her own. Baldwin County Hosp. Auth. v. Martinez, 204 Ga. App. 840, 842, 420 S.E.2d 760 (1992). In other words, she must present some evidence demonstrating that (1) the defendants had actual or constru......
- Evans v. State, A93A2547
-
Brady v. Elevator Specialists, Inc.
...duty to warn, this duty is also based on a defendant's superior knowledge of the defect. See, e.g., Baldwin County Hosp. Auth. v. Martinez, 204 Ga.App. 840, 843, 420 S.E.2d 760 (1992). 18. Rouse v. MARTA, 278 Ga.App. 767, 629 S.E.2d 500 19. See Sparks, supra, 223 Ga.App. at 769-770(2), 478 ......
- Watt v. State, A92A0411