Bartlett v. McDonough Bedding Co.
313 Ga. App. 657
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Bartlett was injured when he fell down a stairwell at the McDonough Bedding shop, which connected the main level to a lower level used as a bookshop.
- Access to the stairs was prohibited by a chain across the top and by a half-wall; merchandise was placed around the landing area.
- Bartlett claimed the stairs were not visible due to clutter and lighting was adequate for viewing merchandise.
- Bartlett testified he looked at merchandise and stepped toward the area, not seeing the stairwell; his wife noted she could see the stairs but focused on where she walked.
- Georgia law imposes a duty on owners to keep premises safe for invitees, but invites must exercise ordinary care for their own safety, especially when departing from designated routes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Bartlett's own conduct bar recovery under the ordinary care standard? | Bartlett claims owner failed to keep safe; danger was due to static defect. | Bartlett voluntarily departed from the designated route and failed to exercise ordinary care for his safety. | Yes; Bartlett's voluntary departure and failure to observe diminished visibility barred recovery. |
| Whether the 'voluntary departure' rule applies to a cluttered display that concealed a hazard | Bartlett argues the display concealed the stairwell, contributing to the accident. | The risk arose from Bartlett's choice to move through cluttered merchandise rather than the owner’s negligence. | Applied; the hazard was behind clutter, and Bartlett's conduct heightened risk, limiting liability. |
| Is the distraction theory applicable to this case? | Bartlett contends his attention was distracted by merchandise. | Distraction cannot excuse risk when the movement toward the hazard caused the injury. | Not applicable; distraction theory does not overcome Bartlett's duty to exercise ordinary care. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaydos v. Grupe Real Estate Investors, 211 Ga.App. 811 (1994) (static defects and invitee duty; proximity of hazard to visitor)
- Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735 (1997) (distraction and reasonable care for invitee's safety where owner control is involved)
- Chamblee v. Grayco, Inc., 266 Ga.App. 154 (2004) (voluntary departure rule in apartment/conditioning contexts)
- Harper v. Kroger Co., 212 Ga.App. 570 (1994) (distraction theory cannot replace owner's duty in typical displays)