El Ranchero Mexican Restaurant, No. 10, Inc. v. Hiner
316 Ga. App. 115
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Hiner sued El Ranchero Mexican Restaurant for a slip-and-fall on August 31, 2008.
- She arrived during lunch hour (about 12:30–1:00 p.m.) and sat at the bar due to crowds.
- She noticed a slippery tile area in front of the kitchen door while going to the restroom.
- She fell on the same area after leaving the restroom, despite careful steps and looking at her feet.
- The restaurant uses morning mopping with a degreaser; the manager inspects in the morning; there is no evidence of prior notification by Hiner about the slippery area.
- The trial court denied summary judgment to the Restaurant; the appellate court reviews de novo and reverses for reasons stated below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hazardous condition and knowledge | Hiner argues the floor was hazardous and the Restaurant knew or should have known. | Restaurant contends no superior knowledge; cleaning/inspection routine prevents imputing knowledge. | Restaurant entitled to judgment; no liability without superior knowledge. |
| Equal knowledge by plaintiff and owner | Hiner had prior notice of slippery tile and traversed it safely before falling. | Hiner's own knowledge and recent passage negate superiority of restaurant knowledge. | Hiner cannot recover; equal knowledge defeats premises liability; summary judgment for Restaurant. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flagstar Enterprises, LLC v. Burch, 267 Ga. App. 856 (Ga. App. 2004) (existence of a hazardous condition is threshold; need superior knowledge for liability)
- Brown v. Host/Taco Joint Venture, 305 Ga. App. 248 (Ga. App. 2010) (superior knowledge required; plaintiff's knowledge may bar recovery)
- Pierce v. Wendy’s Int’l, Inc., 233 Ga. App. 227 (Ga. App. 1998) (if plaintiff negotiates condition, presumed to know it; no recovery if knowledge is equal)
- Hudson v. Quise, Inc., 205 Ga. App. 840 (Ga. App. 1992) (restaurant’s routine cleaning did not impute constructive knowledge to patron; due care expected)
- Taylor v. Golden Corral Corp., 255 Ga. App. 860 (Ga. App. 2002) (summary judgment improper where issues remain as to cleanliness and equal knowledge)
- Ray v. Restaurant Mgmt. Svcs., 230 Ga. App. 145 (Ga. App. 1998) (summary judgment improper where defendant admitted hazard; triable issues remain)
- Gourley v. Food Concepts, 229 Ga. App. 180 (Ga. App. 1997) (knowledge of floor hazard from recent mopping; factual issues remain)
- Belk Dept. Store & Co. v. Cato, 267 Ga. App. 793 (Ga. App. 2004) (premises-liability standard; owner’s knowledge of hazard)