Cook v. Arrington
Decision Date | 04 June 1987 |
Docket Number | No. 74294,74294 |
Citation | 358 S.E.2d 869,183 Ga.App. 384 |
Parties | COOK et al. v. ARRINGTON. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
William G. Scrantom III, Columbus, for appellants.
John Austin, Atlanta, David S. Currie, for appellee.
This is an appeal by plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Cook, from the grant of summary judgment to defendant storeowner in their suit for personal injuries and loss of consortium allegedly sustained as a result of Mrs. Cook's slip and fall just inside the door of defendant's store. The complaint maintained that defendant was negligent in having left clear liquid (later specified as rainwater) on the floor so as to put the safety of its customers in peril, and for not having taken precautions to alleviate the dangerous situation or to warn customers of the hazard.
" Norton v. Ga. R. Bank & Trust, 253 Ga. 596, 603, 322 S.E.2d 870 (1984).
The evidence, thus viewed, shows: it was raining the morning of Mrs. Cook's fall and had stopped approximately one hour prior to her arrival at the store. She had entered her car for the trip immediately from the kitchen door adjacent to the carport, so at no time was she exposed to the weather before or upon entry to her car. She drove directly to the Piggly Wiggly and parked in the store lot. There was a puddle out front. Business was only moderate that day so there were few people in and out and no carts had been taken out. When Mrs. Cook entered the store there was no foot mat either outside or inside the entrance. Once inside, as she approached the area where the buggies were stored, her feet slipped out from under her and she fell; she had the sensation that she was slipping on something liquid on the tile floor. She did not notice any liquid on the floor prior to or after the fall. None of the store employees saw any liquid on the floor before or after the mishap, not even the manager who had gone by the site of the fall about twenty minutes before it happened. There had been no mopping that day.
After being removed from the floor, Cook discovered that the outseam of her right pants leg as well as the undergarments beneath were wet. Her clothes were not wet in any other area and the liquid on her pants leg and undergarments was odorless and colorless and seemed to be water. She had no idea where the liquid came from. After the incident, store personnel mopped the area as a precaution even though they did not see any liquid on the floor.
"[I]n order to state a cause of action in a case where the plaintiff alleges that due to an act of negligence by the defendant he slipped and fell on a foreign substance on the defendant's floor, the plaintiff must show (1) that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the foreign substance and (2) that the plaintiff was without knowledge of the substance or for some reason attributable to the defendant was prevented from discovering the foreign substance." Alterman Foods, Inc. v. Ligon, 246 Ga. 620, 623, 272 S.E.2d 327 (1980).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pandya v. Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc.
...may expect or anticipate." Walker v. Sears Roebuck & Co. , 278 Ga.App. 677, 629 S.E.2d 561, 564 (2006) (quoting Cook v. Arrington , 183 Ga.App. 384, 358 S.E.2d 869, 871 (1987) ); see also Dickerson v. Guest Servs. Co. of Va. , 282 Ga. 771, 653 S.E.2d 699, 701 (2007). Thus, "[s]tore propriet......
-
Hazard v. Medlock Tavern, Inc.
...omitted); accord Walker v. Sears Roebuck & Co. , 278 Ga. App. 677, 680 (1), 629 S.E.2d 561 (2006). Cf. Cook v. Arrington , 183 Ga. App. 384, 385, 358 S.E.2d 869 (1987) ("The risk of harm imposed by some accumulation of water on the floor of business premises during rainy days is not unusual......
-
Smith v. Toys" R" Us, Inc.
...shortly before plaintiff's fall. In Adams, "wet floor" signs were up and periodic inspections occurred. See also Cook v. Arrington, 183 Ga.App. 384, 358 S.E.2d 869 (1987) (rain had stopped for some time, store traffic light, no moisture observed). 11. Gibson, supra at 173(2), 138 S.E.2d 77;......
-
Walker v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
...reasonable inspection and cleaning procedures. See Smith v. Toys "R" Us.10 See also Edwards, supra; Palermo v. Winn-Dixie Atlanta;11 Cook v. Arrington;12 Colbert v. Piggly Wiggly Southern;13 Gibson v. Consolidated Credit Corp.14 A store proprietor "is not an insurer of its invitees' safety ......