Courter v. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, 317 Ga. App. 229

Courter slipped at a Pilot Travel Centers fuel island, injuring his hip, elbow, and neck while on a cross-country trip for his employer.
Plaintiffs filed negligence and personal injury suit after the incident; Pilot moved for summary judgment.
Trial court granted summary judgment, finding Courter had equal knowledge of the hazard and failed to exercise ordinary care.
Court reviews de novo the grant of summary judgment, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.
Courter admitted wet, diesel-stained pavement and knew diesel and water can be slippery, but argues Pilot had superior knowledge of the hazard; the appeal challenges the equal-knowledge ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Pilot’s knowledge of the hazard superior to Courter’s?	Courter argues Pilot had superior knowledge of wet, contaminated pavement.	Pilot argues Courter had equal or superior knowledge due to his own awareness of slipperiness.	No; Courter lacked superior knowledge; judgment affirmed.
Is summary judgment proper when a plaintiff and occupier have conflicting knowledge?	Courter contends material facts about knowledge remain.	Pilot contends no genuine issue of material fact exists on knowledge.	De novo review; no genuine issue on superior knowledge; judgment affirmed.

Dickerson v. Guest Svcs. Co. of Va., 282 Ga. 771 (2007) (premises liability framework; general rule about knowledge)
Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735 (1997) (premises liability; lack of superior knowledge may bar liability)
Hadaway v. Cooner Enterprises, 172 Ga.App. 113 (1984) (precedent on premises liability and knowledge)
Walker v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 278 Ga. App. 677 (2006) (summary judgment where no superior knowledge)
Music v. Steamco, Inc., 265 Ga. App. 185 (2004) (knowledge and slippery conditions; consumer/occupier duties)
Matjoulis v. Integon Gen. Ins. Corp., 226 Ga. App. 459 (1997) (premises liability principles and related defenses)