Edward Carpenter appeals from the trial court’s grant of the Capital City Club’s motion for summary judgment on Carpenter’s claim for damages after he was injured while repairing carpet on the Club’s premises. The trial court, in a thorough and well-reasoned order, held that there was no evidence of the Club’s superior knowledge of any defect in the carpet that would cause Carpenter’s equipment to malfunction and injure him. We agree and affirm.
To prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c). A defendant may do this by showing the court that the documents, affidavits, depositions and other evidence in the record reveal that there is no evidence sufficient to create a jury issue on at least one essential element of plaintiffs case. If there is no evidence sufficient to create a genuinе issue as to any essential element of plaintiffs claim, that claim tumbles like a house of cards. All of the other disputes of fact are rendered immaterial. A defendant who will not bear the burden of proof at trial need not affirmatively disprоve the nonmoving party’s case; instead, the burden on the moving party may be discharged by pointing out by reference to thе affidavits, depositions and other documents in the record that there is an absence of evidence to suppоrt the nonmoving party’s case. If the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must pоint to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).
Lau’s Corp. v.
Haskins,
The undisputed facts are that Carpenter worked “off and on” doing carpet installation and repair for All Shores Flooring. On the
kneel down on the floor and use a device known in the industry as a kicker. As he attempted to repаir the carpet with the kicker, because of the deterioration of the carpeting, the padding, and the underlying structure, [he] lost his balance while kneeling on the floor and sustained an injury to his back and leg.
In his deposition, Carpenter stated thаt he did not know why the carpet ripped when he used the kicker on it.
How it ripped, I don’t — I just don’t, really don’t know how it really haрpened, how it ripped. It could have been a defect from the company when the carpet — the way it was made, or it could have been water from it coming in the doorway and it drying up and — because the carpet, it was — when they first instаlled the.carpet[, it] was down right.
The Club moved for summary judgment, contending that there was no evidence that any act or omission on its part caused Carpenter’s injuries, there was no evidence that a hazardous condition existed on its premises, and even assuming a hazardous condition did exist, there was no evidence that it had superior knowledge of the conditiоn.
Carpenter responded to the motion, arguing that there were issues of fact as to whether the Club should have warned Carpenter about the condition of the carpet and also issues of fact as to whether the Club had superior knowledge of the dangerous condition.
Carpenter did not support these contentions, however, beyond stating that an emрloyee of the Club “had previously observed the condition of the carpet to determine what areas were in need of repair.” This does not show superior knowledge.
“The true ground of liability is the proprietor’s
superior knowledge
of the perilous instrumentality and the danger therefrom to persons going upon the property. It is when the perilous instrumentality is
known to the owner . .
. and
not known to the person injured
that a recovery is permitted.” (Citations and punctuation omittеd.)
Cook v. Home Depot,
In this case, Carpenter has not shown that any allegedly defective condition in the carpet was known to the Club and nоt known by him. Carpenter states that an employee of the Club identified areas that needed repair, but according tо Carpenter, the repairs were necessary because the carpet was a tripping hazard. There is no evidence that any employee could have discerned the defect claimed by Carpenter. Carpenter himsеlf did not discern a defect and he was kneeling down on the carpet and working over it.
We also note that Carpenter claims on appeal that the carpet was damaged by “water leaks.” There is no evidence in the record that the carpet was damaged by water leaks. The only evidence on this issue is that of Carpenter himself and he stated in his deposition that he did not know why the carpet ripped.
Moreover, “[a]n independent contractor is expected to determine for himself whether his place of employment is safe or unsafe, and ordinarily may not recovеr against the owner for injuries sustained in the performance of the contract.”
Hudson v. Santangelo,
In this case, Carpenter, who had been installing and repairing carpets for over 20 years, did not notice any defect in the carpet, even though he wаs kneeling down and working on it. Further, beyond the allegation that an employee showed Carpenter the areas wherе the carpet was a tripping hazard,
Judgment affirmed.