Favour v. Food Lion, Inc.

Decision Date30 November 1989
Docket NumberNo. A89A1962,A89A1962
Citation193 Ga.App. 750,389 S.E.2d 22
PartiesFAVOUR v. FOOD LION, INC., et al.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Stephen E. Curry, Augusta, for appellant.

Timothy S. Mirshak and Glover & Blount, Percy J. Blount, Augusta, for appellees.

BEASLEY, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals the grant of summary judgment to defendants, the owner of the premises on which she slipped and fell and the operator of the owner's immediately adjacent grocery store. The question is whether the undisputed evidence shows as a matter of law that the defendants did not breach the duty imposed by OCGA § 51-3-1. It requires them to "exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe."

Plaintiff fell on ice as she was getting into the family van which her husband had pulled up to the front of the store. He had parked it so that the area which had been cleared of ice by the store employee was outside the van's double doors whereas there was ice outside the passenger door. This occurred after plaintiff went into the store and bought groceries, when there was snow and ice on the roads after a storm the day before, most stores were closed, and the schools in plaintiff's county were closed. Plaintiff was aware of the ice in the parking lot and the shoveled area. She had traversed the ice and snow when going from the van into the store. She appreciated its dangerousness, having lived in the North. She was familiar with the store and its access areas, as she had been there before. Just before she fell her husband told her to be careful because it was icy.

As a matter of undisputed fact, defendants did not have superior knowledge of this admittedly visible condition created by the elements or of its patent dangerousness. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Reid, 132 Ga.App. 136, 207 S.E.2d 532 (1974). As a matter of undisputed fact, plaintiff chose to get into the van from the icy sidewalk rather than from the cleared path. She had seen the ice on that area. She was aware of the specific condition and of its dangerousness. She cannot recover. Chisholm v. Fulton Supply Co., 184 Ga.App. 378(1), 361 S.E.2d 540 (1987). See Rogers v. Atlanta Enterprises, 89 Ga.App. 903, 906, 81 S.E.2d 721 (1954); Harris v. Star Svc., etc., Co., 170 Ga.App. 816, 318 S.E.2d 239 (1984); Alterman Foods v. Munford, 178 Ga.App. 214, 342 S.E.2d 480 (1986). Compare Little v. Liberty Savings Bank, 191 Ga.App. 732, 382 S.E.2d 734 (1989). There was no duty to warn her of a condition of which she had knowledge at least equal to that of defendants. Garnett v. Mathison, 179 Ga.App. 242(2), 345 S.E.2d 919 (1986); Alterman Foods v. Ligon, 246 Ga. 620, 622-3, 272 S.E.2d 327 (1980). See also Roberts v. Gardens Svcs., 182 Ga.App. 573, 356 S.E.2d 669 (1987) [physical precedent].

Appellants rely heavily on Todd v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 258 Ga. 194, 366 S.E.2d 674 (1988), but in that case there was a dispute of fact about whether the proprietor had superior knowledge of the presence of ice and its slipperiness. There was evidence that the patron was unaware of any ice, it was glazed ice, the store manager had slipped on it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • E.P.N., In Interest of
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • November 30, 1989
  • Stallings v. Cuttino
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • September 25, 1992
    ...we conclude that " '[t]his is a "plain, palpable, and indisputable" case not calling for resolution by a jury.' Favour v. Food Lion, 193 Ga.App. 750, 751 (389 SE2d 22) (1989); Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores, 199 Ga.App. 808 (406 SE2d 234) (1991)." Moore, 200 Ga.App. at 464, 408 S.E.2d 480. The tr......
  • Westbrook v. M & M Supermarkets, Inc.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • March 12, 1992
    ...conditions. "[He] was [also] aware of the specific condition [of the sidewalk] and of its dangerousness." Favour v. Food Lion, 193 Ga.App. 750, 751, 389 S.E.2d 22 (1989). Appellants' reliance on Phelps v. Consolidated Equities Corp., 133 Ga.App. 189, 210 S.E.2d 337 (1974) and Telligman v. M......
  • Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • May 10, 1991
    ...was no duty to warn her of a condition of which she had knowledge at least equal to that of defendants. [Cits.]" Favour v. Food Lion, 193 Ga.App. 750, 751, 389 S.E.2d 22 (1989). "This is a 'plain, palpable, and indisputable' case not calling for resolution by a jury. [Cits.]" Favour, supra ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT