Inglett v. Winn Dixie, Greenville, Inc.

Decision Date12 September 1983
Docket NumberNo. 66491,66491
Citation308 S.E.2d 587,168 Ga.App. 192
PartiesINGLETT v. WINN DIXIE, GREENVILLE, INC.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Victor C. Hawk, Augusta, for appellant.

Gould B. Hagler, Augusta, for appellee.

BIRDSONG, Judge.

Slip and Fall. Blanche Inglett was a regular customer of a particular grocery store owned and operated by Winn Dixie. Mrs. Inglett lived three doors down the street from the parking lot of the Winn Dixie store. Over several years preceding the incident in question, Mrs. Inglett had walked from her home through an area at the side of the store and thence into the store. After her shopping, she customarily carried her groceries or pushed a grocery cart back up the side area and on to her home. Either employees of the store or she would then return the cart to the store.

The store customarily used two adjacent areas to unload grocery supplies. At the rear of the store was an area used to unload produce. The area to the side of the store (that used by Mrs. Inglett to gain access to the store) was used to unload the heavier grocery supplies such as canned goods and boxed material. It was customary for the trailer making the delivery to be uncoupled from the tractor and the trailer left in the side area for as much as a day or two while it was being unloaded. Over the years the metal wheels of the trailers had gouged two holes in the macadam. The store personnel were aware of these holes but had taken no steps to fill them in with new asphalt or other filler. The store personnel also were aware that cars parked in this unloading area and that customers walked through the area to get to the store and back to their cars. Mrs. Inglett testified that she knew the location of these two holes and had seen them on many occasions. She even described how the trucks would park while unloading so that one hole would be filled when a truck or trailer was present. Apparently she had walked past the holes with loaded grocery baskets on many occasions.

On the night of the incident in question, Mrs. Inglett was driven to the store by her husband and let out at the front. She completed her shopping and her basket was filled, with some bags stacked on top of each other. When she left the store, she looked for her husband and noted that he was parked at the end of a row of cars in the area to the side of the store. She pushed the basket toward the car. As she approached the car, she realized that the area was somewhat dark. Because the basket was double-stacked with bags, she could not see immediately in front of the basket. Inadvertently, the basket's front wheel ran into one of the holes, causing the basket to tilt. When she attempted to stop the basket from overturning, it fell upon her, pinning her beneath it, causing abrasions and injuries to her ankle and knee or leg.

Contending that Winn Dixie owed a duty to her as an invitee to keep its premises in a reasonably safe condition; that Winn Dixie knew for over two years that the holes were in an area frequently used by its customers; that a Winn Dixie employee double-stacked her basket; and the side area was not as well lighted as it should have been, Mrs. Inglett brought suit against Winn Dixie for her injuries. Countering that Mrs. Inglett had an equal knowledge of the unsafe conditions and that she had assumed any risk in the use of the side area, Winn Dixie moved for directed verdict at the conclusion of the evidence. The trial court granted the motion for directed verdict and Mrs. Inglett brings this appeal thereto. Held:

Certain basic principles are clear. The owner of premises has the duty to keep them in a safe condition for invitees. Burger Barn v. Young, 131 Ga.App. 828, 829, 207 S.E.2d 234. However, an owner is not an insurer of an invitee's safety. Watson v. C & S...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Coates v. Mulji Motor Inn, Inc., 70948
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 18, 1986
    ...by voluntarily acting in view of his knowledge, assumes the risks and dangers incident to the known condition." Inglett v. Winn-Dixie, 168 Ga.App. 192, 194, 308 S.E.2d 587 (1983); Purvis v. Holiday Hills Property Owners Assn., 163 Ga.App. 387, 388-389, 294 S.E.2d 592 (1982). It is thus a qu......
  • Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Turner, 72903
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • October 14, 1986
    ...of the owner of the existence of a condition that could subject the invitee to an unreasonable risk of injury." Inglett v. Winn Dixie, 168 Ga.App. 192, 194, 308 S.E.2d 587 (1983). There was evidence of a gap between the threshold and the floor, and that this defective condition had existed ......
  • Colbert v. Piggly Wiggly Southern
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • May 7, 1985
    ...the existence of a condition that could subject the invitee to an unreasonable risk of injury. [Cit.] Inglett v. Winn Dixie, Greenville, 168 Ga.App. 192, 193-194, 308 S.E.2d 587 (1983)." Durrance v. Bacon County Hosp. Auth., 172 Ga.App. 1-2, 321 S.E.2d 767. See also Hill v. Davison-Paxon, s......
  • Pullen v. Oxford
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • July 16, 1997
    ...of the existence of a condition that could subject the invitee to an unreasonable risk of injury. (Cit.)' Inglett v. Winn-Dixie, Greenville, 168 Ga.App. 192, 194, 308 S.E.2d 587 (1983)." Robinson v. Western Intl. Hotels Co., 170 Ga.App. 812, 813(1), 318 S.E.2d 235. In the case sub judice, O......
  • 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