Patterson v. First Assembly of God of Tifton

• Decision Date: 25 January 1994
• Docket Number: No. A94A0137,A94A0137
• Citation: 211 Ga.App. 718,440 S.E.2d 492
• Parties: , 89 Ed. Law Rep. 670 PATTERSON et al. v. FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD OF TIFTON.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 492

440 S.E.2d 492

211 Ga.App. 718, 89 Ed. Law Rep. 670

PATTERSON et al. v. FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD OF TIFTON.

No. A94A0137.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Jan. 25, 1994.

Saliba, Edwards & Moore, William E. Moore, Jr., Valdosta, for appellants.

John T. Croley, Jr., Fitzgerald, for appellee.

BIRDSONG, Presiding Judge.

Kathy S. Patterson and Carl A. Patterson appeal the grant of summary judgment to First Assembly of God of Tifton in their suit for damages arising from Mrs. Patterson's fall on a ramp on church school premises. The ramp was made of slightly graduated wooden stairs. Mrs. Patterson had taken her daughter up the ramp to the "Ark" for school, and was descending the ramp when her right foot slipped on the wet wood, causing her to break her left foot in several places.

Appellants contend Mrs. Patterson had no actual or constructive knowledge of the specific defective condition of the ramp because she had never descended it when the ramp was wet. They also contend the uncontroverted evidence showed appellee violated numerous building code safety regulations thereby creating a dangerous condition. Their expert's affidavit states that in January 1991, eleven months after Mrs. Patterson's fall, the expert studied the ramp. He found it was defective and unreasonably dangerous and did not comply with the standard building code; it had improper step geometry, non-uniform risers, sloping treads, handrails too low, guardrail openings too large and lack of maintenance, and fungus on the wood; the fact that Mrs. Patterson slipped when the ramp was wet led him to conclude that the ramp was slippery because of the fungus and the lack of slip-resistant treads. Held:

On motion for summary judgment, the evidence is adjudged in favor of the respondents and all doubts are resolved in their favor (Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491, 405 S.E.2d 474, but a respondent's self-contradictory testimony, if not reasonably explained, is construed against her. Prophecy Corp. v. Charles Rossignol, Inc., 256 Ga. 27, 30, 343 S.E.2d 680.

Patterson had safely walked up the wet stairway to take her daughter into the Ark. Appellee's employee Rev. Stokes testified that after she fell, Patterson said, "Well, it's not your fault ... it was just raining and I was in a hurry and slipped and fell." She testified in deposition that she was not in a hurry. However, she also testified she had to be at work at 8:00 a.m. and that she arrived at work as the bell chimes almost every morning, but that there was no set time to arrive "if you get there ... five or ten minutes after [8:00], I'd say 15 minutes leeway"; her practice was to arrive at 8:00. She allowed ten minutes to drive from the school to work. This day she arrived at the school at "probably about ten till 8:00." Although she deposed she was not on a "tight schedule," it is clear that if she arrived at the school at ten till 8:00, she would not have time to get out of her car, go up the ramp and deposit her daughter, descend the ramp, get into her car and drive to her place of work, get out of her car, and arrive at work as the bell chimed at 8:00. She could not arrive five or ten minutes late without hurrying. If she arrived 15 minutes after 8:00 she would be quite late. Construing this evidence under Prophecy Corp., supra, she was on a "tight schedule" as she descended the ramp.

Mrs. Patterson had traversed the ramp out of the Ark about ten times, and in the past her foot "had slid on the boards on the steps. Before I had noticed on an occasion going down those steps that when your foot lands between the 2-by-4s ... if your foot steps in a certain spot, [because of] the unevenness of the two boards ... your foot straddles that. It will slide from one to the other. [This had happened] on at least one occasion, I remember thinking at that time." (Emphasis supplied.) She knew where the handrail was, and "there's [nothing] to obstruct your vision as such. The stairs themselves are in very bad repair.... You have to be aware of it. It's not easy to walk up and down. They're not ... uniform.... It takes a lot of care in coming down them." She testified there was nothing she later found out about the condition of the ramp that she did not know before she fell.

Moreover, the evidence shows without issue that, while others had traversed this ramp despite any...