AMANDA CREBS v. BASS PRO OUTDOOR WORLD
A21A0299
| Ga. Ct. App. | Jun 30, 2021Background
- Amanda Crebs visited a Bass Pro store in 2017 with her husband and young son to see Santa; she was carrying the child when she walked through a store aisle.
- A decorative 18-inch split-rail fence in the aisle protruded about three inches into the walkway.
- While carrying her child (after removing him from the cart), Amanda struck her leg on the protruding rail, fell, and suffered a fractured patella requiring surgery.
- Amanda admitted she had seen the fence as part of the display, that nothing obstructed her view, and that she was not looking down as she walked.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the protruding fence was an open and obvious static condition and that Amanda had equal or constructive knowledge; the trial court granted summary judgment.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the fence was an open and obvious static hazard and Amanda had equal or constructive knowledge, so defendants owed no duty to warn.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the protruding fence was an open and obvious static condition | Amanda: the protrusion was not obvious to her and she did not appreciate the risk | Bass Pro: fence was plainly visible, well lit, and a static feature of the display | Held: Fence was an open and obvious static condition; summary judgment proper |
| Whether Amanda had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard | Amanda: lack of appreciation/awareness of the specific protrusion at the time of the fall | Bass Pro: Amanda had actual knowledge she saw the fence earlier and constructive knowledge because it was in plain view | Held: Amanda had equal or constructive knowledge; owner had no superior knowledge, no duty to warn |
| Whether summary judgment was improper given Amanda’s testimony she wasn’t looking down | Amanda: testimony that she didn’t see the protrusion creates a fact issue | Bass Pro: ordinary-care rule requires invitees to use senses; obvious hazards need no warning | Held: Plaintiff’s failure to look does not create a genuine issue where condition was plainly ascertainable; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735 (Ga. 1997) (summary judgment appropriate where evidence is plain, palpable, and undisputable)
- McLemore v. Genuine Parts, 313 Ga. App. 641 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012) (static, visible conditions are open and obvious; proprietor may assume invitee will see them)
- D’Elia v. Phillips Edison & Co., Ltd., 354 Ga. App. 696 (Ga. Ct. App. 2020) (premises-liability duty requires defendant’s superior knowledge and plaintiff’s lack of knowledge despite ordinary care)
- Rentz v. Prince of Albany, 340 Ga. App. 388 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017) (open-and-obvious static condition fatal to invitee’s claim)
- Ridley v. Dolgencorp, 353 Ga. App. 561 (Ga. Ct. App. 2020) (affirming summary judgment where a visible static parking abutment caused trip)
- Rozy Investments v. Bristow, 276 Ga. App. 278 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005) (invitee must exercise ordinary care and use senses to discover and avoid hazards)