Edwards v. Ingles Market, Inc.
Decision Date | 20 August 1998 |
Docket Number | No. A98A1458.,A98A1458. |
Parties | EDWARDS v. INGLES MARKET, INC. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Van C. Wilks, Carrollton, for appellant.
Chambers, Mabry, McClelland & Brooks, Emory S. Mabry III, Robert M. Malcom, Atlanta, for appellee.
Rose Edwards appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Ingles Market, Inc. in this "rainy day" slip and fall case. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse.
"In determining whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment, we review the record evidence de novo to determine whether that evidence, with all inferences construed in [Edwards'] favor, showed as a matter of law that [Ingles was entitled to summary judgment]." Bell v. Smith, 227 Ga.App. 17, 488 S.E.2d 91 (1997).
Viewing the evidence in this light, the record shows that Edwards entered Ingles on August 15, 1994, during a rainstorm to do her weekly grocery shopping. Edwards was accompanied by her granddaughter, whose hand she was holding. As Edwards approached the shopping carts near the entrance, she slipped in a puddle of water approximately 12 inches in diameter and fell. She testified that she was not looking at the floor as she was walking, but was looking at the shopping carts she was approaching. She also stated that if she had been looking at the floor, she would have been unable to see the puddle, which was invisible. Edwards was wearing flat, rubber-soled shoes at the time of her fall.
Virginia Hand, another customer who had entered the store before Edwards, testified that, approximately 15 minutes prior to Edwards' fall, she reported the presence of the puddle which caused the fall to the store manager. She also stated that no warnings regarding the wet floor were posted. Ingles' manager, Enman Hayes, disputed this testimony, stating that he was not forewarned about the puddle on the floor by Hand.
Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735, 748-749(2)(b), 493 S.E.2d 403 (1997). See also Alterman Foods v. Ligon, 246 Ga. 620, 272 S.E.2d 327 (1980). Moreover, "[a]n invitee might recover for personal injury in a slip and fall only when the perilous instrumentality is known to the owner or occupant and not known to the person injured." (Punctuation omitted.) Robinson at 736, 493 S.E.2d 403. The true ground of liability is the owner or occupier's superior knowledge of the hazard and the danger therefrom. Cook v. Home Depot, 214 Ga.App. 133, 134(1), 447 S.E.2d 35 (1994).
1. In this case, Hand testified that she informed Ingles' manager about the puddle on the floor approximately 15 minutes prior to Edwards' fall. Although Ingles' manager denies such knowledge, for purposes of summary judgment, we must construe the evidence in Edwards' favor. As such, the first prong of the Robinson test is satisfied because there was testimony that Ingles had actual, and therefore superior, knowledge of the puddle which caused Edwards' fall.
Contrary to Ingles' arguments, the fact that Edwards and Ingles must be considered to have equal constructive knowledge that the floor might be wet in a general sense on such a rainy day does not prevent Edwards from satisfying the first prong of Robinson. " (Punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Smith v. Toys "R" Us, 233 Ga.App. 188, 504 S.E.2d 31, (1998).
The present case, however, is distinguishable from Gibson and its progeny as Ingles had superior knowledge of the puddle which caused Edwards to fall. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hazard v. Medlock Tavern, Inc.
...S.E.2d 480 (1986).10 Robinson v. Kroger Co. , 268 Ga. 735, 748–749 (2) (B), 493 S.E.2d 403 (1997) ; accord Edwards v. Ingles Mkt., Inc. , 234 Ga. App. 66, 66, 506 S.E.2d 205 (1998).11 Robinson , 268 Ga. at 749 (2) (B), 493 S.E.2d 403 ; accord Edwards , 234 Ga. App. at 66, 506 S.E.2d 205.12 ......
- Thompson v. State
-
Drew v. Istar Financial, Inc.
...on floor was not shown to be unusual amount for rainy day, plaintiff failed to show defendant's constructive knowledge). 21. 234 Ga.App. 66, 506 S.E.2d 205 (1998). 22. Id. at 67(1), 506 S.E.2d 205. 23. Smith, supra at 190(1), 504 S.E.2d 31. 24. Id. 25. Id. 26. (Punctuation and footnote omit......
-
Walker v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
...493 S.E.2d 403. "The true ground of liability is the owner or occupier's superior knowledge of the hazard and the danger therefrom." Edwards v. Ingles Market.4 1. Walker contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Sears on the ground that she failed to prove the exis......