James Gaskins v. Berry's Boat Dock
334 Ga. App. 642
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- James Gaskin, an invitee at Berry’s Boat Dock, fell into Lake Jackson when a metal post on a ramp broke off as he grabbed it to regain balance; he was injured.
- The ramp leads from a level walkway to a floating dock; low water made the ramp unusually steep at the time.
- The dock’s ramp had series of metal posts with chain; posts and chains were installed in 1994–1995; a nearby similar ramp had been blocked that day for collapse.
- An inspector hired by Gaskin opined the posts were attached to rotten, weathered wood and that bolts pulled through deteriorated wood, indicating lack of structural integrity and need for repair.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding posts were decorative (not a safety handrail), Gaskin had equal or superior knowledge of the ramp condition, his slip caused the fall regardless, and any defect was open and obvious.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding material factual disputes existed about (1) whether defendants had constructive knowledge of rotten attachments and (2) whether the posts were intended/usable as safety handrails (i.e., whether Gaskin reasonably relied on them).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants had notice (actual or constructive) of defective post attachments | Berry’s Dock had constructive notice because the posts were attached to rotten wood and owners lacked reasonable inspection procedures | No actual knowledge; defendants inspected informally and the defect was not known | Reversed: issue of fact whether defendants had constructive knowledge (inspection procedures inadequate to establish lack of notice) |
| Whether Gaskin knew or should have known of the defect (open-and-obvious) | Gaskin could not have reasonably discovered the rot by ordinary inspection; prior use does not bar recovery | Ramp condition was obvious from prior use; Gaskin had equal knowledge and assumed risk | Reversed: fact issue whether Gaskin’s knowledge equaled defendants’ and whether defect was discoverable by him |
| Whether the posts/chains were decorative only or functioned as a safety handrail | Gaskin relied on posts to steady himself and they were effectively used as a handrail | Defendants: posts were decorative; no reasonable person would treat them as safety handrails | Reversed: whether posts were intended/usable as handrail is a question of fact for the jury |
| Whether summary judgment was proper given the evidence (including inspector’s report) | Inspector’s report and evidence of deterioration create genuine issues of material fact | Defendants argued factual record showed no triable issue | Reversed: court found genuine factual disputes precluded summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Home Builders Assn. of Savannah v. Chatham County, 276 Ga. 243 (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Avery v. Cleveland Ave. Motel, 239 Ga. App. 644 (constructive knowledge and inspection-procedure proof at summary judgment)
- American Multi–Cinema v. Brown, 285 Ga. 442 (invitee duty and premises safety principles)
- Hicks v. Walker, 262 Ga. App. 216 (owner’s duty to inspect and protect invitees)
- Davis v. GBR Properties, 233 Ga. App. 550 (invitee’s expectation premises are made safe)
- Paul v. Sharpe, 181 Ga. App. 443 (plaintiff not negligent in relying on deceptively loose railing)
- Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735 (elements for slip-and-fall recovery by invitee)