McDonald v. West Point Food Mart, Inc.
332 Ga. App. 753
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiff Faye McDonald slipped and fell in a West Point Food Mart convenience store after turning from the sales counter; she testified her foot "got hung on something" and she did not see what it was.
- An eyewitness and store employees stated a customer waiting in line placed a case of beer on the floor behind McDonald and she tripped over it; a cashier reportedly told the store operator about this after the incident.
- Store operator conceded customers sometimes place heavy items on the floor while waiting in line, but there was no evidence of prior injuries from that practice.
- McDonald alleged West Point breached its duty under OCGA § 51-3-1 by failing to remove or warn of the hazard, and alternatively by failing to provide baskets/carts or warning signs.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for West Point; the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding McDonald did not show the condition was a foreseeable, unreasonable risk that West Point had superior knowledge of.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether West Point had superior knowledge of a hazardous condition (case of beer) | McDonald: cashier may have seen the beer and had duty to remove/warn | West Point: no evidence of prior incidents or notice; occasional placement not a known hazardous condition | Held: no evidence the condition was a foreseeable, unreasonable risk West Point had superior knowledge of; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether McDonald exercised ordinary care for her own safety | McDonald: she did not see the beer and was exercising ordinary care | West Point: implied that invitees should watch where they step | Held: fact question existed that McDonald exercised ordinary care, but it did not establish owner liability without superior-knowledge hazard |
| Whether store should have implemented preventive measures (carts/baskets or signs) | McDonald: store should have provided carts/baskets or warnings to prevent items on floor | West Point: such measures would impose extraordinary care and are not required by § 51-3-1 | Held: imposing those measures would be extraordinary care; not required—no breach as a matter of law |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | McDonald: disputed facts (eyewitness/cashier statements) preclude summary judgment | West Point: absence of evidence showing foreseeability or prior harm supports summary judgment | Held: summary judgment affirmed because condition was not shown to create unreasonable risk of harm owner should have expected |
Key Cases Cited
- American Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. Brown, 285 Ga. 442 (2009) (premises-liability recovery requires owner/occupier to remove hazards they should have in exercise of ordinary care)
- Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735 (1997) (imposition of premises-liability requires owner had superior knowledge of the hazard)
- Alterman Foods, Inc. v. Ligon, 246 Ga. 620 (1979) (elements of premises-liability: owner knowledge and invitee lack of knowledge)
- Ferguson v. Premier Homes, Inc., 303 Ga. App. 614 (2010) (duty under § 51-3-1 is to exercise ordinary care against unreasonable risks of which owner has superior knowledge)
- Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (1991) (standard of ordinary care varies with circumstances; courts may decide plain and palpable cases)
- City of Gainesville v. Dodd, 275 Ga. 834 (2002) (affirming summary-judgment review under OCGA § 9-11-56)