Bloch v. Herman's Sporting Goods, Inc., A92A1741
| Decision Date | 09 March 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. A92A1741,A92A1741 |
| Citation | 208 Ga.App. 280,430 S.E.2d 86 |
| Parties | BLOCH et al. v. HERMAN'S SPORTING GOODS, INC., et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
England, Weaver & Kytle, George M. Weaver, Atlanta, for appellants.
Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, Lynn M. Roberson, Sybil R. Carter, Atlanta, for appellees.
Patricia and Alan Bloch brought this action for negligence and loss of consortium against Herman's Sporting Goods, Inc., Toys-R-Us, Inc., Northlake Associates, and Crow Atlanta Retail seeking damages for injuries Ms. Bloch sustained when she slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk located in the Northlake Festival Shopping Center.
The facts construed most favorably to the appellants are as follows: Toys-R-Us and Herman's are located adjacent to each other in the Northlake Festival Shopping Center. They are abutted in the front by a continuous sidewalk. On the morning of December 19, 1989, Ms. Bloch went to Northlake Festival Shopping Center to purchase an item from Toys-R-Us. The temperature in the Atlanta area had been below freezing for several days, ice had accumulated in various places around the city and on this particular morning there was "a light freezing rain." Schools in the surrounding area had been closed on December 18, 1989, due to inclement weather and on the morning of the December 19, 1989, Ms. Bloch had observed ice on her daughter's school grounds. As Ms. Bloch approached the entrances of Herman's and Toys-R-Us she noticed a "band of ice that appeared ... to be completely impassible" on the portion of the sidewalk in front of Toys-R-Us. In an effort to avoid the ice, she decided that she would traverse the portion of the sidewalk in front of Herman's. There, Ms. Bloch noticed ice accumulations in the gutter, on the curb and on the first part of the sidewalk. Just beyond the edge of the sidewalk, she saw an area which appeared to be clear of ice but covered with puddles of water. She stepped over the ice and into one of the puddles of water. She slipped on what she believed to be "invisible" ice located under the water and fell, injuring her ankle. She appeals from the order granting summary judgment to the appellees.
In her sole enumeration of error, Bloch contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the appellees. We disagree.
A proprietor has the duty to keep premises safe for his invitees; but the plaintiff cannot recover if she has failed to exercise ordinary care for her own safety. See OCGA §§ 51-3-1 and 51-11-7. In order to recover for a slip and fall resulting from a hazardous condition not only must the plaintiff show that the defendant had knowledge of the presence of the hazardous condition, but the plaintiff must also show that she was without knowledge of its presence. Alterman Foods v. Ligon, 246 Ga. 620, 623, 272 S.E.2d 327 (1980). "The customer must exercise ordinary care for [her] own safety, and must by the same degree of care avoid the effect of the merchant's negligence after it becomes apparent to [her] or in the exercise of ordinary care [she] should have learned of it." (Punctuation omitted.) Id.
Ordinarily, knowledge of a hazardous condition is not necessarily knowledge of danger inherent in such a condition. However, knowledge of a puddle of water surrounded by ice, coupled with knowledge of the generally prevailing weather conditions, is knowledge of a probable danger of encountering additional ice under the surface of the water and a danger of slipping when walking thereon. See Bowman v. Richardson, 176 Ga.App. 864, 865, 338 S.E.2d 297 (1985) (). In the absence of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. Kroger Co.
...435 S.E.2d 734 (1993) (plaintiff had seen warning signs and knew that carpet on which she fell was wet); Bloch v. Herman's Sporting Goods, 208 Ga.App. 280, 430 S.E.2d 86 (1993) (plaintiff who consciously and deliberately put her foot in a puddle of water surrounded by ice in freezing temper......
-
Garrett v. NationsBank, N.A. (South)
...aware of it. See Freeman v. Oak Grove Animal Clinic, P.C., 214 Ga.App. 362, 363, 448 S.E.2d 28 (1994); Bloch v. Herman's Sporting Goods, 208 Ga.App. 280, 281, 430 S.E.2d 86 (1993). However, the plaintiff must, after discovery or a reasonable time within which discovery of the negligence sho......
-
Little v. Alliance Fire Protection, Inc.
...the requisite caution where he has knowledge of a hazardous area, but nevertheless chooses to traverse it. Bloch v. Herman's Sporting Goods, 208 Ga.App. 280, 430 S.E.2d 86 (1993); Bowman v. Richardson, 176 Ga.App. 864, 338 S.E.2d 297 (1985). In Bloch, the plaintiff drove to the defendant's ......
-
Williams v. Sing Bros., Inc.
...after it becomes apparent to her or in the exercise of ordinary care, she should have learned of it. Bloch v. Herman's Sporting Goods, 208 Ga.App. 280, 281, 430 S.E.2d 86 (1993). Notwithstanding Williams' claim to the contrary, the videotape indisputably shows that Williams returned to the ......
-
Torts - Cynthia Trimboli Adams and Charles R. Adams, Iii
...431 S.E.2d 435 (1993). 65. Dunn v. Gourmet, Inc., 207 Ga. App. 826, 429 S.E.2d 282 (1993). 66. Bloch v. Herman's Sporting Goods, Inc., 208 Ga. App. 280, 430 S.E.2d 86 (1993). 67. Ramirez v. Kroger Co., 207 Ga. App. 830, 830,429 S.E.2d 311, 313 (1993) (en banc) (no jury question; distraction......
-
Robinson v. Kroger: a Leveling of the Field or Fatal Fall for Summary Judgment? - Morgan W. Shelton
...659,445 S.E.2d 810 (1994); Lea v. American Home Equities, 210 Ga. App. 214, 435 S.E.2d 734 (1993); Bloch v. Herman's Sporting Goods, 208 Ga. App. 280, 430 S.E.2d 86 (1993)). 22. 199 Ga. App. 808, 406 S.E.2d 234 (1991). 23. Id. at 810, 406 S.E.2d at 236. 24. Id. 25. Id. 26. 213 Ga. App. 49, ......