NORWICH Et Al. v. THE SHRIMP FACTORY, INC.
332 Ga. App. 159
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- At the Shrimp Factory restaurant, two toilet stalls sit on a raised wooden platform (6" above main floor); stall floors are tiled and another 6½" above the platform. Each stall door bears a "Watch Your Step" sign; a yellow stripe marks the stall threshold; two nonskid black strips lie on the platform but do not extend fully to the platform edge; a handrail runs from the wall to the platform end and stops there.
- Mrs. Norwich walked into the restroom, stepped up onto the platform and into a stall, saw the interior warning sign and yellow stripe, and later exited, holding the handrail.
- While exiting she stepped down onto the platform, let go of the handrail at its end, looked toward the sinks believing she was on the main floor, stepped forward and fell, fracturing her ankle.
- Plaintiffs sued for premises liability, alleging negligent design and construction; defendants moved for summary judgment asserting Mrs. Norwich had equal knowledge of the hazard because she previously traversed the same step.
- Plaintiffs submitted two expert affidavits: an engineer citing code violations and dimensions that made the platform hard to appreciate, and a psychology professor opining that visual cues (uniform flooring, absence of edge demarcation, handrail end) created an "apparent continuity" that hid the drop.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the restaurant; the majority on appeal affirmed, holding that successful prior negotiation of the step moments earlier imputed equal knowledge because the condition was static and readily discernible as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff had equal knowledge of the drop from platform to main floor | Norwich: design/visual cues hid the drop; from her vantage the elevation change was not readily discernible despite prior ascent | Shrimp Factory: Norwich had just stepped up the same platform and thus had equal knowledge; hazard was open and obvious | Court: Held for defendant — because Norwich had successfully traversed the step moments before, the static hazard was readily discernible as a matter of law and imputed knowledge |
| Whether expert evidence created a triable issue about visual perception of the step | Norwich: experts showed camouflaging/optical illusion and code defects that made the drop hard to see | Shrimp Factory: expert opinion speculative and irrelevant given Norwich’s own account of conditions and prior traversal | Court: Held expert opinion speculative/irrelevant; plaintiff’s deposition that nothing changed and she had just ascended defeated expert inference |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment on premises-liability facts | Norwich: factual issues (design, markings, handrail length, optical illusion) preclude summary adjudication | Shrimp Factory: facts undisputed that plaintiff knew of the step by prior use, so summary judgment proper | Court: Affirmed summary judgment — applied precedent imputing knowledge after recent successful traversal of an obvious static defect |
| Scope of the "static, readily discernible" exception to the equal-knowledge rule | Norwich: exception applies where hazard was camouflaged or illusory from descent vantage; here jury could find it hidden | Shrimp Factory: here step was readily apparent (signs, stripe, nonskid strips, plaintiff’s own testimony) | Court: Majority: exception inapplicable; dissent: exception creates triable factual issues and summary judgment was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Perkins v. Val D'Aosta Co., 305 Ga. App. 126 (premises-liability elements; prior successful negotiation may impute equal knowledge)
- American Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. Brown, 285 Ga. 442 (open-and-obvious condition defeats duty to warn)
- Gantt v. Dave & Busters of Ga., 271 Ga. App. 457 (prior step-up negates later claim from same step)
- Orff v. Stonewood Restaurant Group, 285 Ga. App. 488 (plaintiff’s prior traversal imputed knowledge; paying attention distinguishes cases)
- Strauss v. City of Lilburn, 329 Ga. App. 361 (equal-knowledge rule limited to static defects that are readily discernible; optical illusion may create triable issue)
- Pennington v. WJL, Inc., 263 Ga. App. 758 (circumstantial/speculative evidence insufficient to create triable issue on causation)