Pirkle v. Quiktrip Corp.
325 Ga. App. 597
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- Pirkle was injured when he slipped on liquid in a QuikTrip store and sued for negligence.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to QuikTrip, ruling no evidence of actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard.
- Pirkle appealed from the grant of summary judgment; QuikTrip moved to dismiss the appeal for failure to pay the filing fee, then for dismissal in this court.
- The appellate court denied the motions to dismiss and proceeded to review the summary judgment issue de novo.
- Video evidence showed the fall occurred at 7:08 a.m. in a busy area; no prior reports of spills are shown before the fall.
- QuikTrip had an inspection regimen; a wet floor sign appeared on video at 6:59 a.m., and a manager performed a shift walk-through earlier that day.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether QuikTrip had actual knowledge of the hazard | Pirkle argues evidence shows an employee mopped nearby before the fall, implying actual knowledge. | QuikTrip contends the mop activity is speculative and does not prove actual knowledge of the liquid. | No genuine issue; no actual knowledge shown. |
| Whether QuikTrip had constructive knowledge of the hazard | Pirkle relies on absence of immediate inspection and on the presence of a liquid spot before the fall. | QuikTrip showed inspection procedures and timely checks; no hazard was visible or easily discoverable. | Constructive knowledge not proven; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Bruno’s Supermarkets, 263 Ga. App. 147 (2003) (constructive knowledge requires reasonable inspection or discovery)
- Host/Taco Joint Venture, 305 Ga. App. 248 (2010) (brief pre-fall inspection can negate constructive knowledge)
- Brown v. Host/Taco Joint Venture, 305 Ga. App. 248 (2010) (employee in area not enough; must be in position to easily see and remove hazard)
- Mucyo v. Publix Super Markets, 301 Ga. App. 599 (2009) (hazard not readily visible defeats showing easy detection)
- Patrick v. Macon Housing Auth., 250 Ga. App. 806 (2001) (proof of causation requires more than mere possibility)
- Brown v. Webb, 224 Ga. App. 856 (1997) (filing/noticing procedures and fee payment nuances in appeals)
- Slater v. Spence, 246 Ga. App. 365 (2000) (procedure for filing and fee payment in appeals)
- Hughes v. Sikes, 273 Ga. 804 (2001) (expedited handling of minor procedural errors)
- American Multi-Cinema v. Brown, 285 Ga. 442 (2009) (premises liability and duty of ordinary care; injuries from hazards)
- Chastain v. CF Ga. North DeKalb L.P., 256 Ga. App. 802 (2002) (hazard not readily visible where not easily discoverable)