Benefield v. Tominich
308 Ga. App. 605
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011

Background

  • Benefield sued April Marie Tominich doing business as Taylor's Gin Store (TGS) for injuries after tripping on a curled corner of a rubber mat outside the store entrance.
  • Mat laid across a ramp leading to the sidewalk, curl caused Benefield to fall; store clerk indoors could not hear her for ~20 minutes after the fall.
  • Benefield had walked over the mat on numerous prior occasions; she did not notice the curled corner due to not looking downward at the moment of the fall.
  • Store manager and sole on-duty employee provided affidavits regarding a duty list and routine exterior inspections; duty list required maintaining outside area and debris-free conditions.
  • Morning inspection reportedly occurred before Benefield’s fall, but the mat was last checked several hours prior to the incident; Benefield alleged reasonable inspection procedures were not followed.
  • Trial court granted TGS summary judgment, finding no genuine issue about TGS’s superior knowledge of the hazard; Benefield appealed.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether TGS had constructive knowledge of the mat hazard. Benefield argues TGS’s inspection procedures were inadequate. Tominich contends no constructive knowledge since no evidence of ongoing hazard; open and obvious condition. Genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment reversed.
Whether the curled mat corner was an open and obvious hazard as a matter of law. Benefield contends reasonable care questions remain; jury should decide. Tominich argues open/obvious hazard absolves duty. Not a plain, palpable, undisputed issue; jury must decide.
Whether TGS’s inspection procedures were reasonable and hence absence of constructive knowledge. Benefield argues inspection program could be inadequate and not followed. Tominich asserts procedures were reasonable. Issue of reasonableness for the jury; not dispositive as a matter of law.

Key Cases Cited

  • Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735, 493 S.E.2d 403 (1997) (GA Sup. Ct. 1997) (supports elements of premises liability and knowledge.)
  • Alterman Foods v. Ligon, 246 Ga. 620, 272 S.E.2d 327 (1980) (GA Sup. Ct. 1980) (establishes knowledge and inspection requirements.)
  • Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491, 405 S.E.2d 474 (1991) (GA Sup. Ct. 1991) (summary judgment standards; proof burdens.)
  • Straughter v. J.H. Harvey Co., 232 Ga.App. 29, 500 S.E.2d 353 (1998) (Ga. Ct. App. 1998) (en banc principle on evidence of inspection necessity not to show length of hazard absence.)
  • Davis v. Bruno's Supermarkets, 263 Ga.App. 147, 587 S.E.2d 279 (2003) (Ga. Ct. App. 2003) (whether reasonable care and inspection raise jury questions.)
  • Shepard v. Winn Dixie Stores, 241 Ga.App. 746, 527 S.E.2d 36 (1999) (Ga. Ct. App. 1999) (inspection frequency and reasonable care issues for jury.)
  • Crook v. Racetrac Petroleum, 257 Ga.App. 179, 570 S.E.2d 584 (2002) (Ga. Ct. App. 2002) (hazard inspections at service stations; jury question.)
  • Valentin v. Six Flags Over Ga., 286 Ga.App. 508, 649 S.E.2d 809 (2007) (Ga. Ct. App. 2007) (premises liability inspection standards and knowledge.)
Read the full case