Days Inns of America, Inc. v. Matt

• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HUNT
• Citation: Days Inns of America, Inc. v. Matt, 265 Ga. 235, 454 S.E.2d 507 (Ga. 1995)
• Decision Date: 13 March 1995
• Docket Number: No. S94G1153,S94G1153
• Parties: DAYS INNS OF AMERICA, INC. v. MATT et al.

Page 507

454 S.E.2d 507

265 Ga. 235

DAYS INNS OF AMERICA, INC. v. MATT et al.

No. S94G1153.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

March 13, 1995.

Reconsideration Denied March 30, 1995.

William T. Casey, Jr., Hicks, Casey, Young & Barber, Marietta, W. Stell Huie, Long, Aldridge & Norman, Atlanta, for Days Inns of America, Inc.

Craig T. Jones, Atlanta, for Richard Matt et al.

Samuel W. Oates, Jr., Columbus, Elizabeth F. Bunce, Franklin, Taulbee, Rushing & Bunce, Statesboro, James D. Hollingsworth, Decatur, Gilbert H. Deitch, Bauer & Deitch, P.C., James C. Grant, Alston & Bird, Stewart A. Anshell, Atlanta, Darrin L. McCullough, Arnold C. Young, amici curiae.

HUNT, Chief Justice.

We granted certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Matt v. Days Inns of America, Inc., 212 Ga.App. 792, 443 S.E.2d 290 (1994) to determine whether, in this suit by a hotel guest for injuries resulting from an attack by an unknown assailant, the Court of Appeals applied the appropriate standard in reversing the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Days Inns. We affirm.

In Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491(1), 405 S.E.2d 474 (1991), we reiterated the applicable law in this type of case. To begin with, a proprietor's duty to invitees is to "exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe." OCGA § 51-3-1.

The proprietor is not the insurer of the invitee's safety, [cit.], but is bound to exercise ordinary care to protect the invitee from unreasonable risks of which he or she has superior knowledge. [Cit.] If the proprietor has reason to anticipate a criminal act, he or she then has a 'duty to exercise ordinary care to guard against injury from dangerous characters.' [Cit.]

Id.

Simply put, without foreseeability that a criminal act will occur, no duty on the part of the proprietor to exercise ordinary care to prevent that act arises. Lau's Corp. controls regarding the question of foreseeability in this case and proof of the prior robbery committed by force creates a triable issue as to whether Days Inns had a duty to exercise ordinary care to guard its patrons against the risks posed by similar criminal activity. Id. at 493(1), 405 S.E.2d 474. Compare Savannah College of Art v. Roe, 261 Ga. 764, 765(1), 409 S.E.2d 848 (1991). Moreover, the record in this case, unlike in Lau's Corp., does not permit summary resolution of the issue of whether ordinary care was exercised assuming that duty arose. ¹

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except BENHAM,...