Manheim Services Corp. v. Connell
| Decision Date | 20 February 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 59345,59345 |
| Citation | 265 S.E.2d 862,153 Ga.App. 533 |
| Parties | MANHEIM SERVICES CORPORATION v. CONNELL et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
David A. Handley, Jonathan H. Waller, Atlanta, for appellant.
Earle B. May, Atlanta, Glenn Whitley, Tipton, for appellees.
This is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant in a slip-and-fall case. The facts are undisputed. Defendant is the operator of a weekly auto auction which plaintiff had regularly attended for five years prior to his fall. The auction is held in a barn-like structure with various lanes through which the vehicles enter to be sold. Between several of the lane entrances and parallel to the front of the building were brick walls, one of which the plaintiff fell over. The wall in question is located about five feet from the front of the auction barn, is 181/2 inches tall, 111/2 inches wide, and nearly 12 feet long. The wall had been in the same location during plaintiff's visits to the auction, and he had walked by it many times. The day in question was substantially like most Thursdays at the auction, except that plaintiff had more cars there to sell than usual and "more things to keep on . . . (his) . . . mind." Plaintiff's fall occurred at 2:30 p. m., and there is no evidence or allegation that lighting or weather conditions were factors. The complaint alleges that the defendant "knew or should have known that the attention of those attending the sales would be attracted to the sales being conducted and distracted by the excitement of these sales." Held :
Ellington v. Tolar Const. Co., 237 Ga. 235, 237, 227 S.E.2d 336, 338 (1976).
Plaintiff urges that activities attributable to defendant distracted him causing him to fall. However, the distraction alleged in this case is the very activity which brought plaintiff to the scene on this occasion and on all of the other occasions he had been present, i. e., the auction activity itself....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Raymond v. Amada Co., Ltd.
...law for the court. McGinnis v. Sunbelt Western Steers, Inc., 173 Ga.App. 270, 270-71, 326 S.E.2d 3 (1985); Manheim Servs. Corp. v. Connell, 153 Ga.App. 533, 265 S.E.2d 862 (1980). Similarly, the adoption of a risk-utility analysis increases a defendant's burden on summary judgment to show t......
-
Atkinson v. Kirchoff Enterprises, Inc.
...which absolutely resolves that issue as a matter of law. Thus, summary judgment would not be authorized. Manheim Svcs. Corp. v. Connell, 153 Ga.App. 533, 265 S.E.2d 862 (1980). I am authorized to state that CARLEY, J., joins in this special SOGNIER, Judge, dissenting. Appellant exited one o......
-
Long v. Adams
...have been granted, since there was no plain, palpable, and indisputable evidence in favor of either party. Manheim Services Corp. v. Connell, 153 Ga.App. 533, 265 S.E.2d 862 (1980). It should be made clear that this court is not stating here that herpes victims have a specific duty to warn ......
-
Anderson v. Dunwoody North Driving Club, Inc.
...a distraction is self-induced, it will not excuse a party from the failure to exercise ordinary care. Manheim Services Corp. v. Connell, 153 Ga.App. 533, 534, 265 S.E.2d 862 (1980); Keister v. Creative Arts Guild, 139 Ga.App. 67, 68, 227 S.E.2d 880 (1976); Ga. Farmers' Market Auth. v. Dabbs......