Vinings Run Condominium Association v. Linda Stuart-Jones
342 Ga. App. 434
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Stuart-Jones lived in a condominium since 2007 under an oral lease-purchase arrangement with the unit owner and paid the mortgage directly.
- She had previously requested maintenance install lighting and an additional handrail for outdoor concrete stairs from the parking lot to her unit; she testified those requests were ignored.
- Stuart-Jones fell while ascending the stairs at night and sued the condominium association (Vinings Run) and the management company (Access Management) for failing to keep the stairway safe.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Stuart-Jones had equal or superior knowledge of the hazardous condition and so cannot recover.
- Stuart-Jones argued the ‘‘necessity rule’’ exception applied because the stairs were her only (or only safe) access to her home.
- The trial court denied summary judgment on the ground that the necessity rule applied; the court of appeals reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stuart-Jones’s equal or superior knowledge of the hazard bars recovery | She knew of the condition but contends necessity prevents preclusion of recovery | Her equal knowledge precludes recovery under superior-knowledge principle | Equal knowledge bars recovery because she had notice and did not exercise care |
| Whether the necessity rule applies to this dispute | Necessity rule applies because stairs were her only reasonable access to her residence | Necessity rule applies only in landlord-tenant relationships and not here | Necessity rule does not apply absent a landlord-tenant relationship; plaintiff failed to show such a relationship |
| Whether a landlord-tenant relationship existed between Stuart-Jones and the appellants | Stuart-Jones argued necessity without pointing to evidence of landlord-tenant relationship with appellants | Appellants argued no landlord-tenant relationship with them (oral lease was with unit owner) | No evidence established a landlord-tenant relationship with the appellants, so exception unavailable |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment denial | Stuart-Jones relied on necessity rule to oppose summary judgment | Appellants established lack of entitlement to recovery as a matter of law based on equal knowledge and lack of necessity-rule application | Court reverses trial court and grants summary judgment for appellants (denial was error) |
Key Cases Cited
- Essien v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 335 Ga. App. 727 (summary judgment standard and de novo review)
- Richardson v. Palmour Court Apts., 170 Ga. App. 204 (landlord liability tied to superior knowledge)
- Flores v. Strickland, 259 Ga. App. 335 (necessity rule exception to equal-knowledge bar applies in landlord-tenant context)
- Amerson v. Kelly, 219 Ga. App. 377 (tenant presumed to know static hazards previously negotiated)
- Hull v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 142 Ga. App. 269 (necessity rule prevents making tenant a captive of unsafe premises)
- Grier v. Jeffco Mgmt. Co., 176 Ga. App. 158 (necessity rule not extended to business owner-customer relationships)
- Shansab v. Homart Dev. Co., 205 Ga. App. 448 (declining to extend necessity rule beyond landlord-tenant)
- Hart v. Brasstown View Estates, 234 Ga. App. 389 (necessity rule not applied to innkeeper-guest relationship)
- McCullough v. Briarcliff Summit, L.P. II, 237 Ga. App. 630 (insufficient lighting on stairs can preclude summary judgment)