Moore v. Food Associates, Inc.

• Decision Date: 04 November 1993
• Docket Number: No. A93A2000,A93A2000
• Citation: 210 Ga.App. 780,437 S.E.2d 832
• Parties: MOORE v. FOOD ASSOCIATES, INC.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 832

437 S.E.2d 832

210 Ga.App. 780

MOORE v. FOOD ASSOCIATES, INC.

No. A93A2000.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Nov. 4, 1993.

Jones, Boykin & Associates, Harold J. Cronk, Savannah, for appellant.

Painter, Ratterree & Bart, R. Clay Ratterree, Catherine N. Clutter, Savannah, for appellee.

BIRDSONG, Presiding Judge.

Florrie Moore appeals the grant of summary judgment to appellee Food Associates, Inc. d/b/a Kentucky Fried Chicken in this slip and fall case. Appellant Moore contends she slipped and fell on a wet floor outside of the toilet stall area of the ladies' restroom in appellee's restaurant. She contends her fall was caused by the accumulation of moisture because appellee mopped the restroom on the evening before and allowed the air conditioning system to remain on overnight. Appellant contends she was the first person to enter the restroom on the morning of the incident. She contends a policeman who examined the area after her fall discovered that the floor was damp due to moisture from the air conditioner.

Appellee/defendant contends the judgment of the trial court was correct, as appellee did not have superior knowledge of the allegedly hazardous condition in its restaurant restrooms. Appellee's assistant manager testified that she had inspected the restroom before the store opened at 10:30 a.m. and discovered no moisture on the floor outside the toilet stalls. Appellee also contends that a periodic inspection made no more than 15 minutes before appellant's fall disclosed no moisture on the floor where appellant contends there was moisture. Held:

On a defendant's motion for summary judgment, the evidence is construed in the respondent's favor; the respondent is given the benefit of all doubts and all reasonable inferences therefrom are indulged in her favor. The burden is on the movant to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Rivergate Corp. v. BCCP Enterprises, 198 Ga.App. 761, 762, 403 S.E.2d 65. Where the movant fails in that burden, the grant of summary judgment is error. 944, Inc. v. Ga. State Bank, 198 Ga.App. 893, 894, 403 S.E.2d 466. But where the movant carries this burden, the respondent may not rest on her pleadings but must put forth evidence showing actual issues for trial (Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491, 405 S.E.2d 474).

In support of its judgment, appellee contends the standard of review of a grant of summary judgment is whether there is any evidence to support it, and that the appellate court does not perform a de novo review of the evidence. Appellee's contention is patently incorrect. It is well established that on appeal of a grant of summary judgment, the appellate court must determine whether the trial court erred in concluding that no genuine issue of material fact remains and that the party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See 944, Inc. This requires a de novo review of the evidence. A trial court's conclusion that no genuine issue of material fact remains and that the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law cannot be upheld merely on the basis that there was some evidence to support that conclusion, for there is no such thing as...