Watts & Colwell Builders, Inc. v. Martin
313 Ga. App. 1
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Watts & Colwell Builders, Inc. appeals a trial court summary judgment denial in a Martin personal injury case.
- Martin alleges injury when a handicap bathroom stall door hinge failed and the door fell, striking her.
- Martin testified the door came off both hinges and knocked her to the ground; she had used the restroom previously without issue.
- Rowland, Watts’ on-site contact (DFACS liaison), reported a prior isolated bathroom door issue but no hinge problems before Martin’s injury; Watts retained maintenance responsibility for bathrooms.
- Watts moved for summary judgment arguing out-of-possession landlord status with no notice to repair; trial court denied, Watts appealed; issue framed around OCGA 44-7-14 and related theories.
- Appellate court ultimately reverses, granting Watts summary judgment on all applicable theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spoliation evidence supports denial? | Martin relies on spoliation from Watts for lost hinge. | Watts’ loss of hinge does not show contemplated litigation; no spoliation presumption. | Spoliation claim rejected; no genuine issue. |
| Res ipsa loquitur applicable? | Res ipsa could prove Watts’ negligence given control over premises. | Watts lacked exclusive control of hinge; res ipsa not applicable. | Res ipsa loquitur not applicable. |
| Liability under OCGA § 44-7-14 (landlord liability)? | Watts had duty to inspect/repair defects in leased premises. | No notice/defect discovery; limited control does not impose liability. | Watts entitled to summary judgment under 44-7-14. |
| Liability under OCGA § 51-3-1 (constructive knowledge)? | Watts failed reasonable inspections and record-keeping to show constructive knowledge. | Watts conducted regular walk-throughs; no prior reports; inspection would not have revealed the defect. | Watts entitled to summary judgment under 51-3-1. |
| Defective construction claim reviewability? | Court’s ruling should address defective construction claim. | Record lacks a ruling or transcript on that theory; unresolved on appeal. | No reviewable ruling on defective construction; not decided on record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kitchens v. Brusman, 303 Ga. App. 703 (Ga. App. 2010) (spoliation standard requires contemplation of liability)
- Paggett v. Kroger Co., 311 Ga. App. 690 (Ga. App. 2011) (no spoliation presumption from incident report alone)
- Craig v. Bailey Bros. Realty, 304 Ga. App. 794 (Ga. App. 2010) (simple injury does not trigger spoliation rules)
- Smith v. U-Haul Co., 225 Ga. App. 356 (Ga. App. 1997) (res ipsa loquitur elements and cautions)
- Sams v. Wal-Mart Stores, 228 Ga. App. 314 (Ga. App. 1997) (res ipsa caution; intermediary causes possible)
- James v. Vineville Christian Towers, 256 Ga. App. 72 (Ga. App. 2002) (reasonableness of inspections related to constructive knowledge)
- Silman v. Assoc. Bellemeade, 294 Ga. App. 764 (Ga. App. 2008) (landlord inspection duty and discovery of unsafe conditions)
- Padilla v. Hinesville Housing Auth., 235 Ga. App. 409 (Ga. App. 1998) (inspections need not disclose every latent defect)
- Harris v. Sloan, 199 Ga. App. 340 (Ga. App. 1991) (landlord liability caveats; limited liability under inspection regimes)
- Gainey v. Smacky’s Investments, 287 Ga. App. 529 (Ga. App. 2007) (inspections and latent defect discovery standards)