Harold Travis v. Quiktrip Corporation
339 Ga. App. 551
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On July 12, 2011, tanker driver Harold Travis (employed by Petroleum Transport Co.) delivered gasoline to a QuikTrip (QT) remote-drop station and was struck by a car while retrieving a dropped tank cap in the parking-area tank-access well.
- QT required drivers to "stick the tanks" (manually measure underground tanks) before and after delivery; drivers had reported prior "close calls" at remote-drop locations because tank access was in active parking flow.
- Travis had protested the policy to QT and testified drivers had been disciplined for failing to comply; he used cones but was on hands and knees when struck from behind.
- Travis sued the motorist (later settled) and QT and the station manager, asserting premises liability and negligent hiring/supervision; the trial court granted summary judgment for QT and the manager after reconsideration.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding material factual questions existed about assumption of risk/coercion and whether QT had superior knowledge or created the dangerous condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether QT/manager are liable under premises-liability (OCGA § 51-3-1) despite plaintiff's knowledge of hazard | Travis: QT created/maintained a hazardous condition (tank access in parking flow) and coerced compliance with a risky policy, so his knowledge does not bar recovery | QT/manager: Travis had equal or superior knowledge of the hazard (long experience, prior "close calls"), so he cannot recover | Reversed summary judgment — factual disputes exist; equal/ superior knowledge does not automatically bar recovery because risk arose from third-party conduct and coercion may negate assumption of risk |
| Whether plaintiff assumed the risk of the danger | Travis: He was compelled by policy and risked termination if he refused, so exposure was not voluntary | QT: The hazard was open/obvious and within Travis's knowledge, so he assumed the risk | Court: Voluntariness is disputed — coercion evidence (policy, discipline) prevents deciding assumption of risk as a matter of law |
| Whether the "work changes character for safety" exception (job makes place safe or changes safety character) applies | Travis: QT’s policy and placement of tank access created a non-inherent hazard; exception not applicable | QT: Delivering/sticking tanks alters the place’s character and drivers assume job risks, barring recovery | Court: Exception inapplicable as a matter of law here because QT created unique conditions (policy + tank placement); factual issues remain about assumption of risk |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Travis: Genuine issues of material fact exist (coercion, voluntariness, whether danger created by QT) | QT: Undisputed facts support summary judgment (equal knowledge, open/obvious hazard, statutory defenses previously argued) | Court: Summary judgment was improper; material factual disputes preclude deciding these issues as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735 (1997) (landowner liability rests on superior knowledge of hazard)
- O’Steen v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 194 Ga. App. 240 (1990) (equal-knowledge rule applies where invitee could anticipate danger and avoid it with ordinary care)
- Bass Custom Landscapes, Inc. v. Cunard, 258 Ga. App. 617 (2002) (assumption of risk requires voluntary exposure; coercion can preclude the defense)
- York v. Winn-Dixie Atlanta, Inc., 217 Ga. App. 839 (1995) (Hobson’s choice created by employer/customer can defeat assumption-of-risk as a matter of law)
- Elsberry v. Ivey, 209 Ga. App. 620 (1993) (exception when hired work makes place safe or changes character for safety)
- Long Leaf Indus., Inc. v. Mitchell, 252 Ga. App. 343 (2001) (employees assume usual and obvious hazards of their work)