350 Ga. App. 137
Ga. Ct. App.2019Background
- Dickerson, a social guest at a backyard birthday party hosted by Brown, tripped on an orange extension cord draped across brick stairs and was injured.
- The fall occurred at night; lighting near the stairs was dim and Dickerson did not see the cord until after she fell.
- Brown testified he performed yard work earlier using gasoline-powered equipment, denied placing or seeing any extension cord on the stairs, checked the yard before leaving to run errands, and returned after the fall.
- Several other guests were present at the party while Brown was away; no witness testified about who placed the cord.
- There were no photographs or physical evidence of the cord in the record and no testimony contradicting Brown’s account that no cord was present when he left.
- The trial court denied Brown’s summary judgment motion; Brown obtained interlocutory appeal and the appellate court reviewed the denial de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brown owed a duty to Dickerson as a licensee beyond not willfully or wantonly injuring her | Dickerson argued Brown actively or negligently created/allowed a hidden hazard (extension cord) that injured her | Brown argued he did not place or know of the cord and thus owed no willful or wanton duty breach | Court treated Dickerson as a licensee and applied willful/wanton standard; duty arises only if owner knew or had reason to know of hidden danger |
| Whether there was evidence Brown placed or knew of the cord before leaving | Dickerson relied on circumstantial facts (it's Brown's house; he owned orange cords; he worked earlier) to infer knowledge/placement | Brown gave direct, positive testimony denying placement/knowledge and checking the yard before leaving | Court held circumstantial evidence was insufficient to contradict Brown’s uncontroverted testimony; no genuine fact issue |
| Whether circumstantial evidence raised a genuine issue to deny summary judgment | Dickerson contended circumstantial evidence allowed an inference Brown was responsible | Brown argued the circumstantial facts did not contradict his direct testimony and only permitted speculation | Court held circumstantial evidence must do more than allow speculation; here it did not and summary judgment should have been granted |
| Whether claim could be saved as "active negligence" even if condition preexisted plaintiff’s arrival | Dickerson suggested owner’s acts before arrival can constitute active negligence | Brown argued absence of evidence he created or knew of the hazard precludes active negligence finding | Court declined to resolve broader conflict in authority but found no evidence of placement/knowledge, so summary judgment warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (1991) (summary judgment standard and necessity of eliminating at least one essential element)
- Haley v. Regions Bank, 277 Ga. 85 (2003) (direct testimony must be contradicted by other facts to avoid summary judgment)
- Manners v. 5 Star Lodge & Stables, 347 Ga. App. 738 (2018) (licensee recovery requires possessor knew or had reason to know of hidden peril and failed to warn or make safe)
- Patterson v. Kevon, LLC, 304 Ga. 232 (2018) (limitations of circumstantial evidence when inconsistent with unimpeached direct testimony)
- Thompson v. Oursler, 318 Ga. App. 377 (2012) (social guest is a licensee; plaintiff must show owner knew or should have known of condition)