Duff v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia
341 Ga. App. 458
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Duff, a college student, slipped and fell on rainwater inside a building hallway between classes and sustained injuries.
- She entered the building before it began raining; her classrooms had no windows, so she had no actual knowledge it was raining outside.
- The fall occurred more than three classrooms away from the nearest entrance; other students had tracked water into the building.
- Witness testimony conflicted: some described "standing water" and that Duff’s clothing became wet; other testimony compared the water to wiping the floor with a wet paper towel.
- The Board moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted it, concluding the rainwater was not an "unusual or unreasonable" hazardous condition as a matter of law.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, finding factual disputes (amount/location of water and foreseeability) precluded summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether rainwater on interior hallway floor is a hazardous condition as a matter of law | Duff: standing water inside an interior hallway where invitee had no reason to expect water was a hazardous/unreasonable condition | Board: water accumulations from rain are ordinary and not an unusual hazard; summary judgment appropriate | Reversed trial court — factual dispute exists; not categorically nonhazardous |
| Whether Duff had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard | Duff: lacked actual knowledge (no windows; began raining after arrival) | Board: invitees on rainy days are charged with knowledge that water may be present | Court: Duff lacked actual knowledge and location (interior, distant from door) distinguishes this from cases charging invitees as a matter of law |
| Whether the amount of water was de minimis or presented a jury question | Duff: testimony of "standing water" and wet clothing supports hazard | Board: testimony compared spill to wiping floor with wet paper towel, not hazardous | Court: conflicting evidence must be resolved by jury; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment on these premises-liability issues | Duff: disputes of material fact regarding hazard and knowledge preclude summary judgment | Board: evidence admitted showed no unreasonable danger, so judgment as a matter of law proper | Court: applied de novo review; because evidence not "plain, palpable, and undisputed," summary judgment was erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. Kroger, 268 Ga. 735 (clarifies owner/occupier duty to invitees and summary judgment caution)
- Dickerson v. Guest Svcs. Co., 282 Ga. 771 (limits applying rainy-day expectation to interior areas where invitee has no reason to expect water)
- Walker v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 278 Ga. App. 677 (holds some interior water on rainy days may be expected; contrasted here)
- Season All Flower Shop, Inc. v. Rorie, 323 Ga. App. 529 (applied rainy-day knowledge to lobby/threshold areas; distinguished)
- Matjoulis v. Integon Gen. Ins. Corp., 226 Ga. App. 459 (summary judgment standard)