824 S.E.2d 705
Ga. Ct. App.2019Background
- In April 2013 Richard Hall slipped and fell in a hotel bathtub while showering, injuring his head, knee, hip and arm and later seeking medical care.
- Hall testified the tub felt like "standing on ice" and that there was likely soap on his foot; he observed dark streaks he believed were where non-slip strips used to be.
- Hall’s wife reported the incident to the hotel two days later; she said the general manager told her there were no traction strips and the room should not have been rented. The manager denied remembering that conversation.
- The hotel was undergoing tub resurfacing/renovation; hotel and contractor witnesses testified the tubs had built-in, non-deteriorating non-slip surfaces and resurfacing was cosmetic.
- Photographs show six darker longitudinal stripes on the tub bottom; the tub in Hall’s room was resurfaced after the fall.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; Court of Appeals reversed, finding material factual disputes about whether the tub had a functioning non-slip surface and whether code violations could imply superior knowledge of a dangerous condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hall showed the bathtub presented an unreasonably dangerous condition | Hall: tub lacked traction/non-slip surface (photographs, wife’s report, manager’s alleged admission); violated industry/county/ASTM standards | Defs: tub had built-in, non-deteriorating non-slip surface; resurfacing was cosmetic; no prior slip incidents | Reversed summary judgment — genuine disputes of material fact exist about whether the tub had functioning traction and whether safety standards were violated |
| Whether proprietor had superior knowledge of defect | Hall: nonconformity with codes/standards raises inference of superior knowledge (negligence per se evidence) | Defs: no notice of prior slips; took steps (resurfacing) and contend surface was safe | Court held evidence of alleged code/standard violations raises jury question on superior knowledge |
| Causation of fall (soap vs. lack of traction) | Hall: fall caused by lack of traction in tub | Defs: fall could be caused by soap or other factors; plaintiff’s testimony speculative | Court: multiple reasonable inferences (soap, no grab, or lack of traction) create material fact issues for jury |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment | Hall: summary judgment improper given conflicting testimony and regulatory evidence | Defs: evidence undisputed that non-slip surface not subject to deterioration, supporting summary judgment | Court: because evidence is not "plain, palpable, and undisputed," summary judgment improper; remanded for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Courter v. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, 317 Ga. App. 229 (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Leavins v. Nayan Corp., 344 Ga. App. 417 (premises-liability duty; proprietor’s liability depends on superior knowledge)
- Womack v. Oasis Goodtime Emporium I, 307 Ga. App. 323 (standards for proving negligence per se and use of industry standards)
- Pylant v. Samuels, 262 Ga. App. 358 (summary judgment improper where factual disputes exist)
- Hicks v. Walker, 262 Ga. App. 216 (nonconformity with codes may show superior knowledge)
- Bryant v. DIVYA, Inc., 278 Ga. App. 101 (contrast: summary judgment affirmed for hotel where no evidence of code violation)
- Shadburn v. Whitlow, 243 Ga. App. 555 (limitations on speculative testimony on causation)