Kroger Co. v. Barentine
| Decision Date | 21 October 1993 |
| Parties | The KROGER CO. v. BARENTINE. A93A2177. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Webb, Carlock, Copeland, Semler & Stair, Douglas A. Wilde, Atlanta, for appellant.
Drew, Eckl & Farnham, John G. Blackmon, Jr., Atlanta, for appellee.
The underlying action is based on a complaint sounding in negligence brought by Dale Barentine against The Kroger Company (Kroger). Upon the trial of the case, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Barentine. Kroger appeals the trial court's denial of its motion for directed verdict, its motion for j.n.o.v., and, alternatively, its motion for new trial.
Barentine entered Kroger at approximately 3:45 a.m., to purchase a box of cigars. On his way to check out, he slipped and fell on a puddle of a clear liquid near the check-out counter. Kroger contends that during his testimony at trial, Barentine contradicted his earlier deposition testimony and that this contradiction, construed against him, demanded a directed verdict in favor of Kroger. On deposition, Barentine testified on cross-examination, Kroger's counsel then asked, "You would not have any trouble seeing it?" Barentine responded: "No. I'm sure I wouldn't because I've been in too many times." At trial, Kroger's counsel asked Barentine, "If you had been looking where you were going walking towards the check-out line and looked down you would not have had any trouble seeing that puddle there, would you?" In response, Barentine testified, "Sir, I was watching where I was going, but the floor was clear and I could not see it if I had a magnifying glass, if I was looking right down through it." Kroger's counsel then attempted to impeach Barentine with his deposition testimony. Whether Barentine was successfully impeached is a question for the jury. Jackson v. Riviera Dev. Corp., 130 Ga.App. 146(1), 202 S.E.2d 545 (1973).
Kroger argues that the trial court should have construed Barentine's contradictory testimony against him and granted Kroger's motion for directed verdict based on Barentine's failure to exercise ordinary care for his own safety by failing to watch where he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colevins v. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc.
...rise to genuine issues of material fact, the movant/defendant is entitled to a grant of summary judgment. Cf. Kroger Co. v. Barentine, 210 Ga.App. 795, 796, 437 S.E.2d 629, citing Prophecy, 3. Additionally, when asked why she did not see the foreign substance on the floor, appellant by way ......
-
J.H. Harvey Co. v. Johnson
...omitted.) Froman v. George L. Smith, Ga. World, etc., Auth., 197 Ga.App. 338, 339, 398 S.E.2d 413 (1990). In Kroger Co. v. Barentine, 210 Ga.App. 795, 437 S.E.2d 629 (1993), we recently reversed the trial court's denial of Kroger's motion for new trial and motion for directed verdict where ......
-
Harper v. Kroger Co.
...256 Ga. 27, 30, 343 S.E.2d 680. Consequently, Harper's affidavit provides no basis for reversing the trial court. Kroger Co. v. Barentine, 210 Ga.App. 795, 796, 437 S.E.2d 629. Further, the sole distraction Harper asserts, looking for sodas, cannot be accepted under the distraction theory b......
-
Barentine v. Kroger Co.
...Semler & Stair, Atlanta, for The Kroger Co. SEARS-COLLINS, Justice. We granted certiorari in this case, The Kroger Co. v. Barentine, 210 Ga.App. 795, 437 S.E.2d 629 (1993), to consider whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied the rules applicable to the contradictory testimony of a pa......
-
Torts - Cynthia Trimboli Adams and Charles R. Adams Iii
...at 873-74, 446 S.E.2d at 757. 56. Id. at 874-75, 446 S.E.2d at 758. 57. 264 Ga. 224, 443 S.E.2d 485 (1994). 58. Kroger Co. v. Barentine, 210 Ga. App. 795, 437 S.E.2d 629 (1993), rev'd, 264 Ga. 224, 443 S.E.2d 485 (1994). 59. 264 Ga. at 225, 443 S.E.2d at 486. 60. See, e.g., J.H. Harvey Co. ......