Henderson v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC.

Decision Date11 September 1998
Docket NumberNo. A98A0870.,A98A0870.
PartiesHENDERSON et al. v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Cannon & Meyer von Bremen, William E. Cannon, Jr., William H. Gregory II, Albany, for appellants.

Denney, Pease, Allison & Kirk, John W. Denney, Columbus, for appellee.

JOHNSON, Presiding Judge.

Elaine and Kenneth Henderson filed a personal injury action against Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. for injuries sustained after Elaine Henderson tripped over a security cable outside a hardware store owned by Lowe's. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Lowe's. The Hendersons appeal from the judgment entered on the verdict.

The Hendersons contend the trial court erred by charging on assumption of risk because there was no evidence supporting such a defense. We disagree.

"Assumption of risk assumes that the actor, without coercion of circumstances, chooses a course of action with full knowledge of its danger and while exercising a free choice as to whether to engage in the act or not." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Mann v. Anderson, 206 Ga.App. 760, 763(2), 426 S.E.2d 583 (1992). "When there is any evidence, however slight, upon a particular issue, it is not error for the court to charge the law in relation to that issue." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Evans v. Dept. of Transp., 226 Ga.App. 74, 75(2), 485 S.E.2d 243 (1997).

Viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence shows that the Hendersons walked from their parked car toward the front of the store. It was raining, and the Hendersons had no umbrellas. Rather than walking through the parking lot to reach the store entrance, the Hendersons traveled along a covered area which ran adjacent to the store. The area near the entrance was being used to display lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, garbage cans and other merchandise. Shopping carts were stored near the merchandise. The Hendersons walked between the store wall and the rows of merchandise until they saw that their path was blocked by the shopping carts. They noticed that the carts were connected by a security cable. The Hendersons turned around and began walking back the way they came. They saw what they thought was an opening between a displayed lawnmower and a wheelbarrow. In fact, the lawnmower and wheelbarrow were connected by a security cable. Instead of walking around the displayed merchandise, they proceeded between the items. Elaine Henderson tripped and fell over the security cable. At trial she admitted that the security cable was plainly visible in a photograph taken of the scene by Kenneth Henderson on the day of the accident.

That Elaine Henderson did not see this particular security cable before she fell does not mean the charge on assumption of risk was given in error. In Telligman v. Monumental Properties, 172 Ga.App. 783(1), 323 S.E.2d 888 (1984), we found no error in the trial court's charging the jury on assumption of risk where the plaintiff did not see the particular patch of ice upon which she slipped but saw other patches of ice on the sidewalk, knew the temperature was "around freezing" and knew the area looked wet. Similarly, in Taylor v. Citizens Bank, 185 Ga.App. 667, 668(1), 365 S.E.2d 511 (1988), we held that an assumption of risk charge was authorized where the plaintiff knew of the general presence of ice on the ground and of the freezing temperature, even though the patch of ice upon which the plaintiff slipped may not have been visible unless a person "stooped down" and viewed it from a particular angle.

Elaine Henderson was aware that cable was being used in the area to connect or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Russell v. SUPERIOR K-9 SERVICE, INC.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • March 20, 2000
    ...This evidence was sufficient to raise a jury question on assumption of risk, and the charge was proper. Henderson v. Lowe's Home Centers, 234 Ga.App. 573, 574, 507 S.E.2d 159 (1998). 3. Russell next contends that because the doctrine of assumption of risk assumes that someone acted without ......
  • Jimenez v. Morgan Drive Away, Inc.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • June 23, 1999
    ...exercising a free choice as to whether to engage in the act or not. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Henderson v. Lowe's Home Centers, 234 Ga. App. 573, 507 S.E.2d 159 (1998). "The knowledge requirement does not refer to a plaintiff's comprehension of general, non-specific risks that mi......
  • Hipple v. Simpson Paper Co., No. A98A1416
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • September 11, 1998
    ... ... Hipple & Associates, L.L.C., and Corporate Counsel, Inc. for rent due and trespass. Following a bench trial, the ... ...
  • Bass Custom Landscapes, Inc. v. Cunard, A02A0909.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • November 7, 2002
    ...judgment to Bass. 1.Mayhue v. Middle Ga. Coliseum Auth., 253 Ga. App. 471, 472, 559 S.E.2d 488 (2002). 2. Henderson v. Lowe's Home Centers, 234 Ga. App. 573, 574, 507 S.E.2d 159 (1998). 3. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Gen. Tel. Co. &c. v. Hiers, 179 Ga.App. 105, 107, 345 S.E.2d 652 ......
  • 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