Rentz v. Prince of Albany, Inc.
340 Ga. App. 388
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Rentz visited Prince of Albany car dealership with companion to shop for a pickup; sales floor contained display vehicles, offices, and a corn hole game (two 4' plywood ramps) placed near the offices.
- Rentz and companion walked across the sales floor multiple times while talking with a salesperson; evidence showed they passed the corn hole game three times during the visit.
- As Rentz exited an office after answering the salesperson, she turned, took a step, caught her foot on the corn hole board, and fell, sustaining a torn meniscus.
- Rentz sued for negligent maintenance and failure to warn; defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the game was an open and obvious static condition and Rentz had prior opportunity to observe it.
- Trial court granted summary judgment; on appeal Rentz argued the board was movable (not a static condition), her prior passes didn’t preclude recovery, and the distraction doctrine applied because she had briefly turned to answer the salesperson.
- The court reviewed de novo, viewed evidence in Rentz’s favor, and affirmed summary judgment for Prince of Albany.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether corn hole game was an open and obvious static condition | Game was movable and thus not a static, patent defect | Game was effectively static and plainly visible; nothing obstructed view | Game was a static, open-and-obvious condition; summary judgment appropriate |
| Whether prior successful navigation precludes recovery | Prior passes don’t eliminate liability because Rentz didn’t see the game | Prior successful traversals create legal presumption of knowledge | Prior traversal three times created presumption Rentz knew of hazard; bars recovery |
| Whether distraction doctrine defeats summary judgment | Momentary distraction by salesperson excused Rentz’s duty to observe | No distraction after she turned back; she had prior unobstructed opportunities to see game | Distraction doctrine inapplicable; no evidence of necessary diversion at moment of fall |
| Whether factual dispute (game moved) precluded summary judgment | Speculation that game was moved during brief office visit raises fact issue | No evidence game was moved; defendant testified it remained in place | Speculation insufficient; undisputed evidence shows game was not moved; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Matjoulis v. Integon Gen. Ins. Corp., 226 Ga. App. 459 (definition of summary judgment standard)
- Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735 (distraction doctrine and invitee duty principles)
- LeCroy v. Bragg, 319 Ga. App. 884 (static condition doctrine; proprietor may assume invitee will see unobstructed static defect)
- Rowland v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 280 Ga. App. 530 (portable sign held a static condition where it remained in open view)
- Nemeth v. RREEF Am., LLC, 283 Ga. App. 795 (presumption of knowledge after prior successful navigation)
- Delk v. Quiktrip Corp., 258 Ga. App. 140 (prior visits and obviousness can support summary judgment)
- Bartlett v. McDonough Bedding Co., 313 Ga. App. 657 (distraction by in-store activity may not excuse plaintiff where prior opportunity to observe existed)
- Sherrod v. Triple Play Cafe, LLC, 285 Ga. App. 689 (premises-liability standards for invitees)