CHRIS FRAZIER v. GODLEY PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
342 Ga. App. 608
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Four-year-old King Frazier drowned on July 4, 2014, in the Godley Park community pool after being underwater for nearly five minutes; bystanders attempted resuscitation and emergency responders arrived about twenty minutes after the call.
- King was at the pool with non-resident relatives who used a resident aunt’s pool key card; the aunt had not registered or accompanied them (she said she was not informed of registration/escort rules and had previously allowed family to use her card).
- Plaintiff (King’s father) sued the homeowners’ association, the management company, and the property manager for negligent pool management; the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding King a trespasser and defendants owed only a limited duty.
- The Court of Appeals held the trespasser/invitee status was a jury question (aunt was a resident whose guests can be invitees), but affirmed summary judgment because defendants were not shown negligent in the operative ways claimed and causation was lacking.
- Plaintiff alleged three negligence theories: no lifeguard present; no flotation/safety rope marking slope transitions; and no posted pool address by the emergency phone contributing to delayed 911 response. Defendants relied on compliance with applicable regulations and evidence that any delay did not cause death.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Status of child (trespasser vs. invitee) | King was a trespasser because resident rules required registration and escort which weren’t followed | Aunt was a resident and had customarily allowed family to use her key; guests of residents are invitees | Court: jury question whether King was invitee; trial court’s trespasser finding reversed |
| No lifeguard present | Defendants negligently failed to provide a lifeguard | Posted signs warned no lifeguard; local regulations did not require a lifeguard for this pool type | Held for defendants — no regulatory duty to provide lifeguard and no breach shown |
| No flotation/safety rope at beginner/shallow transition | A flotation line was required at the 3-foot transition between beginner and shallow areas | Pool was zero-depth entry with gradual slope and no discrete slope change; regulation applies only where slope change exists | Held for defendants — regulation inapplicable; expert interpretation was incorrect |
| No address posted by emergency phone / delayed response causation | Lack of posted pool address by phone may have delayed 911 response and contributed to death | Street address was posted and code-compliant; most callers used cell phones; evidence showed responder delay did not cause death | Held for defendants — posting not required and undisputed medical evidence shows delay did not contribute to death |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaydos v. Grupe Real Estate Investors, 211 Ga. App. 811 (440 SE2d 545) (1994) (guest of resident may be invitee)
- Paul v. Sharpe, 181 Ga. App. 443 (352 SE2d 626) (1987) (guest of tenant is invitee when visiting premises)
- Chambers v. Peacock Constr. Co., 115 Ga. App. 670 (155 SE2d 704) (1967) (invitation may arise from customary use or conduct)
- Plantation at Lenox v. Lee, 196 Ga. App. 420 (395 SE2d 817) (1990) (owner not insurer; liability requires proximate cause by negligence)
- Winchester v. Sun Valley-Atlanta, 206 Ga. App. 140 (424 SE2d 85) (1992) (no liability absent breach of legal duty)