Hayward v. Kroger Co.
317 Ga. App. 795
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Frances Hayward, 78, slipped on a damp area at the Kroger Stone Mountain entrance after days of rain.
- Kroger had a rainy-day safety policy requiring staff to warn, block, sign, and mop up water and replace wet mats as needed.
- Rodriguez, Kroger’s store manager, testified signs were placed; she altered mats and mopped front entrances during the morning.
- Klein, assistant manager, swore she helped place mats and mop frequently; Hayward moved to strike Klein’s affidavit and Masone’s expert affidavit.
- The trial court denied some discovery motions and Kroger produced copies of photographs; no videotape of the incident was located.
- The court granted Kroger summary judgment; on appeal, the standard is de novo review of evidence to determine no material facts remain.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion on striking affidavits | Hayward argues Klein's affidavit should be struck and Masone's expert affidavit should be admitted. | Kroger contends Klein was identified properly and Masone’s testimony was inadmissible as conclusory. | No abuse; Klein properly identified; Masone affidavits struck. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying production of a videotape | Hayward sought videotape of the incident as part of discovery. | Kroger testified no camera recorded the incident; production not required. | No abuse; denial sustained; no videotape exists to compel. |
| Whether Hayward showed Kroger had superior knowledge or unusual water accumulation | Hayward argues Kroger knew or should have known about the hazard and failed to act. | Kroger asserts there was no unusual accumulation and Hayward had equal or greater knowledge of rain-related conditions. | No genuine issue; Kroger did not have superior knowledge; no unusual accumulation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rubin v. Cello Corp., 235 Ga. App. 250 (1998) (standard for de novo review on summary judgment)
- CNL APF Partners v. Dept. of Transp., 307 Ga. App. 511 (2010) (review of discovery rulings for abuse of discretion)
- Colbert v. Piggly Wiggly Southern, 175 Ga. App. 44 (1985) (premises liability standards for wet floors during rain)
- Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735 (1997) (need for superior knowledge by owner for recovery)
- Landings Assn. v. Williams, 291 Ga. 397 (2012) (premises liability knowledge standard)
- Walker v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 278 Ga. App. 677 (2006) (unusual accumulation and inspection standards)
- Prophecy Corp. v. Charles Rossignol, Inc., 256 Ga. 27 (1986) (Prophecy rule on contradictory deposition testimony)
- HNTB Ga., Inc. v. Hamilton-King, 287 Ga. 641 (2010) (Daubert-type considerations for expert testimony)
- Reeder v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 235 Ga. App. 617 (1998) (abuse of discretion standard in trial court rulings)