Pinder v. H & H Food Services, LLC
326 Ga. App. 493
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- On March 16, 2008, Pinder left a KFC in Vidalia, GA, at dusk and fell while descending from a sidewalk toward a handicap ramp/parking area, injuring her ankle.
- Pinder testified the ramp edge appeared flush with the sidewalk in the (allegedly inadequate) lighting; she intended to place her left foot on the ramp but landed on the parking-lot surface and caught her shoe between the ramp and a loose concrete parking bumper.
- Witnesses (Johnny and Jenevive McRorie) and an incident report described a parking bumper that was loose, angled, and had a rusted, protruding bolt; photographs taken after the fall showed the bumper slanting toward the sidewalk.
- H & H (property owner and KFC franchisee) maintained it performed routine inspections multiple times daily and weekly maintenance checks and denied making repairs to the ramp or bumper before demolition in 2010; no prior falls were reported.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for H & H, finding no genuine issues as to hazard, H & H’s knowledge, or Pinder’s own negligence; the Court of Appeals reversed, finding material factual disputes precluding summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of hazardous condition | Drop-off at ramp edge plus unmarked change in elevation and loose parking bumper created a hidden hazard causing the fall | Ramp design/construction not defective; no evidence the ramp or bumper caused fall | Jury issue exists; factual disputes about drop-off, bumper position, and lighting create an issue of hazard |
| Actual or constructive knowledge | H & H had constructive notice of static conditions (ramp edge, lack of warnings, lighting) and inspections would reveal them | H & H inspected premises regularly and had no notice or complaints; no evidence condition existed long enough to impute knowledge | Defendant failed to disprove constructive knowledge; reasonable-inspection and bumper-condition questions for jury |
| Plaintiff's comparative negligence | Pinder exercised ordinary care, could not detect the elevation change due to lighting/optical impression | Pinder saw and ‘‘stepped down’’ and was negligent as a matter of law for walking in the dark | Whether Pinder exercised ordinary care is a jury question; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Adequacy of inspection procedures to negate constructive notice | N/A (Pinder argues inspections insufficient to eliminate constructive knowledge) | H & H points to routine/daily inspections and insurer inspections as adequate | Insufficient undisputed proof that inspections were adequate and actually followed; creates factual issue for jury |
Key Cases Cited
- American Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. Brown, 285 Ga. 442 (clarifies two-element test for trip-and-fall premises liability and jury role on factual questions)
- Burnett v. Ingles Markets, Inc., 236 Ga. App. 865 (defendant must disprove actual knowledge and absence of constructive knowledge at summary judgment)
- Hagadorn v. Prudential Ins. Co., 267 Ga. App. 143 (owner charged with constructive notice of static slanted concrete and absence of warning paint)
- Ramotar v. Kroger Co., 322 Ga. App. 28 (summary adjudication on constructive knowledge requires undisputed proof that inspection procedures were in place and adequate)
- Davis v. GBR Properties, Inc., 233 Ga. App. 550 (plaintiff’s burden on second prong of trip-and-fall not met until defendant establishes plaintiff’s negligence; inspections and constructive notice principles)