Ethridge v. Davis
Decision Date | 02 March 2000 |
Docket Number | No. A99A1844.,A99A1844. |
Citation | 243 Ga. App. 11,530 S.E.2d 477 |
Parties | ETHRIDGE et al. v. DAVIS et al. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Jones, Cork & Miller, W. Kerry Howell, Macon, for appellants.
F. Robert Raley, Macon, for appellees.
Sanford and Charles Ethridge, owners of a partnership d/b/a Colonnade Apartments, appeal the denial of their motion for summary judgment in this premises liability suit by Ricky Davis and his wife.1 A certificate of immediate review was granted by the trial court, and this Court granted the application for interlocutory appeal. Because Davis had equal knowledge of the defect in the premises which caused his injury, we reverse.
This Court reviews de novo a trial court's grant or denial of summary judgment. Jackson v. Post Properties, 236 Ga.App. 701, 513 S.E.2d 259 (1999).
To prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56(c). A defendant may do this by showing the court that the documents, affidavits, depositions and other evidence in the record reveal that there is no evidence sufficient to create a jury issue on at least one essential element of plaintiff's case.... [T]he burden on the moving party may be discharged by pointing out by reference to the affidavits, depositions and other documents in the record that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case. If the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue.
(Emphasis omitted.) Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491, 405 S.E.2d 474 (1991).
Viewed in favor of Davis, the evidence was that he, his wife and their daughter moved into Colonnade Apartments in 1994. They had lived in Unit 208, a townhouse, for at least a year prior to Davis' fall on June 17, 1996. Sometime shortly after they moved in, they noticed a leak in the ceiling of the kitchen around the light fixture. The bathroom was located above the kitchen, and the leak apparently originated from the bathroom pipes in the walls or ceiling.
The leak was reported to Altman, the resident manager, six or seven months prior to the fall, and notice was also given to the maintenance man. Additionally, after the leak had not been repaired, Sanford Ethridge came to the apartment and was personally shown the leak. Davis deposed that they complained about the problem "off and on for almost a year."
Davis said the leak was worse when the shower or tub was being used in the bathroom but that "[i]t practically leaked all the time." The water would puddle in the light fixture in the kitchen ceiling. When so much water accumulated, Davis said he knew the leak was a problem because he complained about it constantly.
Mrs. Davis repeatedly cleaned up the water from the leak, which was hard to see on the floor because it was white linoleum. As she deposed, "I know I mopped and got water up every day some time during the day for ... a year." Davis also stated that the water would be hard to see on the floor due to the white linoleum.
Although the leak was persistent, its timing would vary based on the rate of accumulation of the water. Mrs. Davis deposed that it leaked "different things different days." Davis stated that "[y]ou never knew ... it depends on how much water collected before it would—how bad it would pour out or leak or drip out."
On June 17, 1996, Mrs. Davis cleaned the kitchen floor that morning and had been in the kitchen three times thereafter and had not noticed more leaking. Around 5:00 p.m., Davis went into the kitchen to retrieve asthma medicine for a child for whom Mrs. Davis provided child care.
Even though the landlord is under a statutory duty to keep the premises in repair, OCGA §§ 44-7-13 and 44-7-14, he is not an ensurer of the tenant's safety.
Hall v. Thompson, 193 Ga.App. 574, 388 S.E.2d 381 (1989). "Although the issue of the plaintiff's exercise of due diligence for his own safety is ordinarily reserved for the jury, it may be summarily adjudicated where the plaintiff's knowledge of the risk is clear and palpable." [Cit.]
Wells v. C & S Trust Co., 199 Ga.App. 31-32, 403 S.E.2d 826 (1991).2
In Wells, the plaintiff, having notified the landlord of the lack of illumination in a stairwell, nonetheless attempted to use the stairwell in the dark when there was another route available. See Culberson v. Lanier, 216 Ga.App. 686, 455 S.E.2d 385 (1995) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cornelius v. Morris Brown College
...judgment is reviewed de novo on appeal, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Ethridge v. Davis, 243 Ga.App. 11, 12, 530 S.E.2d 477 (2000). So viewed, the evidence shows that on the evening of August 29, 1997, Hartwill Cornelius IV, a returning Morris Brown s......
-
Bruce v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC.
...judgment is reviewed de novo on appeal, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Ethridge v. Davis, 243 Ga.App. 11, 12, 530 S.E.2d 477 (2000).Case No. A13A1874 Construed in favor of Bruce, the record shows that on October 15, 2007, Bruce, a TMC employee, drove o......
-
Allen v. Zion Baptist Church of Braselton
...judgment is reviewed de novo on appeal, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Ethridge v. Davis, 243 Ga.App. 11, 12, 530 S.E.2d 477 (2000). Construed in favor of the Allens, the record shows that Zion's child protection policy, stated in the application give......
-
Hamilton v. Kentucky Fried Chicken
...e.g., Murray, supra, 243 Ga.App. at 835-836, 534 S.E.2d 204. 13. Joyner, supra, 168 Ga.App. at 857(3), 310 S.E.2d 578(d). 14. 243 Ga.App. 11, 530 S.E.2d 477 (2000). 15. Robinson, supra, 268 Ga. at 744(2), 493 S.E.2d 403(a). 16. 187 Ga.App. 620, 371 S.E.2d 99 (1988) (physical precedent only)......