Durrance v. Bacon County Hosp. Authority, 68498

• Decision Date: 05 September 1984
• Docket Number: No. 68498,68498
• Citation: 321 S.E.2d 767,172 Ga.App. 1
• Parties: DURRANCE v. BACON COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 767

321 S.E.2d 767

172 Ga.App. 1

DURRANCE v. BACON COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY.

No. 68498.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Sept. 5, 1984.

Robert B. Sumner, Douglas, J. Laddie Boatright, Hazelhurst, for appellant.

M. Theodore Solomon II, Alma, for appellee.

CARLEY, Judge.

Appellant-plaintiff was injured when she slipped and fell on a sidewalk maintained by appellee-defendant. Appellant initiated a civil action against appellee and, in her complaint, alleged appellee's negligence in failing to maintain its common areas properly and in failing to provide proper warnings. By its answer, appellee denied any liability to appellant. The trial court granted appellee's motion for summary judgment, and appellant appeals.

The facts are undisputed: Appellant had been visiting a relative at the Bacon County hospital. At 10:30 a.m., appellant and her sister-in-law had "just walked outside," when she fell on an uneven portion of the sidewalk located near the front door of the hospital. Appellant stated in her deposition that she had been to the hospital on numerous occasions and that she was aware of the uneven sidewalk. According to appellant, although "anybody could see it," she hadn't seen it that day and wasn't thinking about it at the time she fell. There was also evidence that appellee had knowledge of the uneven and defective condition of the sidewalk located on the premises of its hospital, and had knowledge that several other people had fallen previously on the uneven sidewalk.

"Certain basic principles are clear. The owner of premises has the duty to keep them in a safe condition for invitees. [Cit.] However, an owner is not an insurer of an invitee's safety. [Cit.] Moreover, we discern a distinction between emergency conditions existent on an owner's premises and static conditions which are not inherently dangerous in and of themselves .... We characterize a 'static' defect as one which in and of itself is not dangerous. Certainly where there is common knowledge of a break in pavement, the defect standing alone is not dangerous or likely to cause injury until such time as one drives into it or falls into it. ' "The rules governing the land proprietor's duty to his invitee presuppose that the possessor knows of the condition and 'has no reason to believe that they (his invitees) will discover the condition or realize the risk involved therein.' [Cit.] The basis of the proprietor's liability is his superior knowledge, and if his invitee knows of the condition or hazard there is no duty on the part of the...