365 Ga. App. 71
Ga. Ct. App.2022Background
- Hazard, a regular customer, entered Medlock Tavern on a rainy evening; the tavern has a long slip-resistant mat at its single entry/exit.
- Another patron arrived an hour+ after Hazard, described the entry mat as a ‘soaking mess,’ slipped (but did not fall) on the mat, and warned a bartender that ‘somebody was going to get hurt.’
- The bartender did not address the condition, saying staff were busy; no wet-floor signs were placed.
- About 30–50 minutes after that patron’s slip, Hazard left, stepped off the mat in response to a greeting, stepped into a puddle (about the size of a manhole cover), and fell; she fractured her right humerus.
- Hazard sued for negligence; the trial court initially denied the tavern’s motion for summary judgment but later, on reconsideration after additional deposition evidence, granted the tavern summary judgment.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tavern had actual or constructive knowledge of an unreasonable accumulation of water | Hazard: another patron slipped and warned staff 30–50 minutes earlier, showing actual/superior knowledge | Tavern: rainwater is a natural occurrence; no evidence tavern knew of an unusual accumulation or failed reasonable cleanup | Reversed: testimony of prior slip and warning plus size of puddle created a genuine issue on tavern knowledge |
| Whether Hazard exercised ordinary care (comparative negligence) | Hazard: she did not see accumulated water when entering and slipped after stepping off the mat while turning toward a friend | Tavern: implies Hazard should have seen or avoided the hazard; that her conduct may bar recovery | Reversed: whether Hazard exercised ordinary care is a jury question given the circumstances; summary judgment inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Dickerson v. Guest Servs. Co. of Va., 282 Ga. 771 (Ga. 2007) (proprietor liable only if it had superior knowledge of hazard)
- Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735 (Ga. 1997) (elements for premises-liability recovery include defendant knowledge and plaintiff lack of knowledge despite ordinary care)
- Edwards v. Ingles Mkt., Inc., 234 Ga. App. 66 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998) (prior warning to manager shortly before fall can establish defendant actual knowledge)
- Smith v. Toys R Us, Inc., 233 Ga. App. 188 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998) (some water at an entry during rain is common; owners not required to mop continuously)
- Hayward v. Kroger Co., 317 Ga. App. 795 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012) (standard for appellate review of summary judgment)
- Cook v. Arrington, 183 Ga. App. 384 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987) (natural accumulation of rainwater is not an unusual risk absent evidence to the contrary)