Paggett v. Kroger Co.
311 Ga. App. 690
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Paggett slipped getting out of his vehicle at a Kroger gas station on Sept. 11, 2009, and sued Kroger for negligence.
- The trial court granted Kroger summary judgment, finding no dangerous condition and no spoliation presumption.
- Rain had fallen earlier that day; at the time of the fall Paggett did not see liquid on the pavement, but he slipped on a substance that wet his clothing.
- A Kroger unit manager testified the substance was rainwater, and Paggett did not inspect the substance to determine its nature.
- The trial court held there was no genuine issue of material fact as to a dangerous condition and also held Kroger did not spoliatedly destroy evidence; the court affirmed.
- The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed, upholding the grant of summary judgment and the spoliation ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of a dangerous condition at the gas station | Paggett contends a slippery substance created a dangerous condition | Kroger argues rainwater created no unreasonable risk | Kroger summary judgment affirmed |
| Spoliation presumption for the surveillance video | Paggett asserts spoliation presumption applicable due to video destruction | Kroger had no notice of contemplated litigation; no spoliation | Spoliation presumption denied; trial court not shown abuse |
Key Cases Cited
- Drew v. Istar Financial, 291 Ga. App. 323 (Ga. App. 2008) (premises liability standard for dangerous condition)
- Dickerson v. Guest Svcs. Co., 282 Ga. 771 (Ga. 2007) (summary judgment standard in premises liability)
- Metts v. Wal-Mart Stores, 269 Ga. App. 366 (Ga. App. 2004) (no liability without evidence of dangerous condition and knowledge)
- Baxley v. Hakiel Indus., 282 Ga. 312 (Ga. 2007) (spoliation and notice considerations)
- Craig v. Bailey Bros. Realty, 304 Ga. App. 794 (Ga. App. 2010) (spoliation notice sufficient to trigger preservation issues)