Grinold v. Farist
| Decision Date | 21 February 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. A06A2134.,A06A2134. |
| Citation | 643 S.E.2d 253,284 Ga. App. 120 |
| Parties | GRINOLD v. FARIST. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Hawkins & Parnell, Peter R. York, Atlanta, for appellee.
Ronald Ray Grinold was injured when he fell on property adjacent to property owned by Joe Neil Farist. Grinold had come to the property to inspect a camper that Farist had advertised for sale and that he had parked on the driveway of his aunt, who owned the adjacent property. Grinold sued Farist, as well as Farist's aunt and a cousin who Grinold claimed also resided on the aunt's property, asserting that they had acted negligently and maintained a hazardous condition that constituted a nuisance. Farist moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial court. Grinold appeals, claiming that the trial court erred in granting Farist's motion for summary judgment. We disagree and affirm.
On appeal from a grant or denial of summary judgment, we conduct a de novo review of the law and evidence. Rubin v. Cello Corp., 235 Ga.App. 250, 510 S.E.2d 541 (1998). In applying this standard of review on a motion for summary judgment, this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. A defendant may prevail on summary judgment "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." Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491, 405 S.E.2d 474 (1991).
So viewed, the evidence showed that on August 21, 2003, Grinold was driving in Cobb County when he saw a sign advertising a camper for sale. Farist had parked the camper on a driveway on property owned by his aunt, who lived next door to him. Grinold parked his car on the driveway and walked to the camper. While he was inspecting the inside of the camper, Grinold was greeted by Farist and his son. After deciding not to purchase the camper, Grinold exited the camper and began walking back to his car. While walking in the grass along the side of the driveway, Grinold slipped and fell.
1. Grinold claims that the trial court erred in granting Farist's motion for summary judgment as to his claim of negligence. We disagree.
Anderson v. Barrow County, 256 Ga.App. 160, 163(2), 568 S.E.2d 68 (2002).
The plaintiff must introduce evidence which affords a reasonable basis for the conclusion that it is more likely than not that the conduct of the defendant was a cause in fact of the result. A mere possibility of such causation is not enough; and when the matter remains one of pure speculation or conjecture, or the probabilities are at best evenly balanced, it becomes the duty of the court to grant summary judgment for the defendant.
(Citation omitted.) Feazell v. Gregg, 270 Ga. App. 651, 655(2), 607 S.E.2d 253 (2004).
Here, Grinold admitted in his deposition that he did not know what caused his fall, only that it was "something wet." Grinold also admitted that he did not see any substance on the ground, either before or after his fall, and that he never inspected the substance that caused him to fall. In an affidavit filed following his deposition, Grinold claimed that he initially thought he had fallen on fecal matter but later determined that the wet substance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blondell v. Courtney Station 300 LLC
...the conclusion that it is more likely than not that the defendant's conduct did in fact cause the injury. See Grinold v. Farist , 284 Ga. App. 120, 121 (1), 643 S.E.2d 253 (2007). Proximate cause, on the other hand, is a separate "limit on legal liability." Johnson v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., ......
-
Johnson v. 3M
...resulting harm.") Under Georgia law, "the essential element of nuisance is control over the cause of the harm." Grinold v. Farist , 284 Ga.App. 120, 643 S.E.2d 253, 255 (2007) (quoting Fielder v. Rice Const. Co. , 239 Ga.App. 362, 522 S.E.2d 13, 17 (1999) ). "The tortfeasor must be either t......
-
Parris v. 3M Company
...must be either the cause or a concurrent cause of the creation, continuance, or maintenance of the nuisance." Grinold v. Farist , 284 Ga. App. 120, 122, 643 S.E.2d 253 (2007) (citation omitted). According to the Plaintiff, the Manufacturing Defendants and Mount Vernon exercised sufficient c......
-
In re Equifax, Inc.
...Mot. to Dismiss, at 20-21.102 Anderson v. Barrow Cty. , 256 Ga. App. 160, 163, 568 S.E.2d 68 (2002).103 Id.104 Grinold v. Farist , 284 Ga. App. 120, 121, 643 S.E.2d 253 (2007) (quoting Feazell v. Gregg , 270 Ga. App. 651, 655, 607 S.E.2d 253 (2004) ).105 Id. at 121-22, 643 S.E.2d 253.106 De......
-
Zoning and Land Use Law - Dennis J. Webb, Jr., Marcia Mccrory Ernst, Joseph L. Cooley, John Chadwick Torri, and Victor A. Ellis
...S.E.2d at 325-26. 183. Id. at 35, 643 S.E.2d at 326. 184. Id. at 37, 643 S.E.2d at 327. 185. Id. at 37-38, 643 S.E.2d at 327-28. 186. 284 Ga. App. 120, 643 S.E.2d 253 (2007). 187. Id. at 122, 643 S.E.2d at 254. 188. Id. at 121-22, 643 S.E.2d at 254. 189. Id. at 122, 643 S.E.2d at 255. 190. ......
-
Torts
...wreck and injure plaintiff).9. 314 Ga. App. 854, 726 S.E.2d 122 (2012).10. Id. at 856-57, 726 S.E.2d at 125 (quoting Grinold v. Farist, 284 Ga. App. 120, 121-22, 643 S.E.2d 253, 254 (2007)).11. Id. at 856, 726 S.E.2d at 125. 12. Id. at 857, 726 S.E.2d at 125. For further discussion of proxi......
-
Environmental Law
...§ 2, para. 9(e)). 177. Id. at *128-29.178. Id. at *144-46.179. Id. at *146.180. Id. at *147.181. Id. at *172 (quoting Grinold v. Farist, 284 Ga. App. 120, 122, 643 S.E.2d 253, 255 (2007)).182. Id. at *174 (citing Kenner v. Addis, 61 Ga. App. 40, 43, 5 S.E.2d 695, 698 (1939)).183. Id. at *17......