*1 13, 199 28, 1995. denied March McKnight, for H. Robert Rock, Angela Kutak & Wolensky, K. Bailey, C. Michael
Bruce Tinkler, Jr., appellee. for Gottsche, Groff, & William Tinkler M. Bradley, pro se. L. Charles SECURITY, et al. v. THREE RIVERS
A94A2253. HOWELL Smith, Judge. grant of sum- appeals from the trial court’s
Paul Brent Howell defendants, Security, Inc. and Disco Three Rivers mary judgment 2000, Inc., case. Mania to Howell are as in a most favorable The facts construed Rome, Georgia, named Shenani- a bar follows: Disco Mania owns Howell security for the bar. provides Rivers uniformed gan’s. Three Billy got fight he into a with allegedly injured the bar when person. According Bennett, an unnamed third Franklin procedure place at Shenani- president, to Three Rivers’ there was a peri- bar for various whereby patrons be banned from the gan’s the record causing of time for trouble. There is evidence ods had been told were fight Bennett and Morriss However, on the manently Shenanigan’s banned from The was not enforced. date of the incident this ban fight Howell had been record also shows that a few weeks before incident that oc- personally by Bennett because of an threatened also had girl friend. Howell curred between Howell and Bennett’s up. him that Bennett wanted to beat heard from other sources paid charge a cover and was fight, On the Howell friends. along his date and some admitted to with Bennett and Morriss Shortly Howell found out that arriving, Bennett, told some friends also at the bar. After Howell he wanted to him. told his date that to “watch his back” for Howell one leave, leaving he decided to dance instead of but during last dance he tried more slow dance. Howell (ten feet) security guard allegedly fifteen to a to dance close any security guard protection. Howell never told might be after any employee inside the bar of the bar that someone might danger. or that he coming to- Bennett and the others dancing, While Howell saw him, put Bennett Expecting him. to hit ward Bennett, knee. injured his struggling head-lock. While with falling allegedly floor, After Howell was kicked the head thirty Morriss. The altercation ten lasted from seconds. Howell officers, claims that after the incident one of Disco Mania’s Mrs. Greene, told Howell that she knew what Bennett and Morriss were there for and that she should not have let them enter the bar. Accord- ing Howell, Mrs. Greene also told him that Bennett and Morriss had both been banned from the bar life. *2 complaint,
In his Howell claimed that Three Rivers knew or propensity should have of known Bennett’s and Morriss’ for violence wantonly wilfully negligent failing properly and thus was secure the premises to more or less Howell from these individ- uals. Howell claimed that Disco Mania also knew or should have propensity known that these individuals had a for violence and that negligent failing provide adequate security Disco Mania Shenanigan’s. bring Howell while an invitee at Howell did not suit against Bennett or Morriss. summary Three Rivers and Disco Mania both filed motions for judgment. opposition motions, In to these Howell filed the of affidavit Larry Talley, security expert. Talley opinion his respective Disco Mania and Three Rivers had both breached their du- by allowing ties of care premises Bennett and Morriss to come back onto the originally banning them. He also stated that those “proximate damages. breaches were the court We affirm. cause” of Howell’s The trial granted summary judgment to Disco Mania and Three Rivers. As a
Howell was an invitee in this case. See Lee v. 797) (1988). proprietor’s 88 “exercise A to invitees is to keeping approaches care in safe.” proprietor § OCGA 51-3-1. The “is not an insurer of an invitee’s safety. ground liability The true ... is the may subject of the existence of a condition that invitee to an unreasonable risk of harm.” Augusta Nat., Pound v. 167-168 In this Morriss testified affidavit that on a occasion he and Bennett had both been barred from During deposition, his Morriss also testified that on one occasion he was told he was barred from the bar for life. This and the purported statements of Mrs. Greene constitute record evidence that knowledge Disco Mania and Three Rivers had actual that Bennett propensity they arguably and Morriss had a for violence and that posed Shenanigan’s patrons, including to all question Howell. It is also that on the Talley’s and Morriss were both allowed to enter the bar. affidavit negligence on Disco Three states that this constitutes Mania and Riv- part. ers’ readily agree
We that Disco and Three Rivers’ actions in Mania’s allowing premises, Bennett and Morriss on the the knowl- edge allegedly possessed, duty they constitutes a breach of the breach of alone does not make a de- in negligence. ground fendant liable The rule remains that the “true superior ... knowledge of the ex- may subject istence of a condition that the invitee to an unreasonable Pound, (Emphasis supplied.) supra. risk of harm.” seriously appellees contend that peril of Howell’s under the circumstances. Howell mani- remaining by deliberately fested his of the risk to dancing proximity knew, close guard. or cer- known, tainly totally strategy should have would not neu- him remaining premises. ignore tralize the known risk to on the To “ consequence appellees making be tantamount ‘the ” Pound, surer safety.’ supra. of [Howell’s] Since duty by appellees “proximate breach of was not the injuries, cause” of Howell’s properly granted appellees’ trial court motion summary judgment. *3 Judgment J., Birdsong, J., Andrews, Beasley, C. P. affirmed.
Johnson, Ruffin, JJ., J., Blackburn and McMurray, concur. and J., Pope, P. dissent.
Pope, Presiding Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully majority opinion. dissent to the in case, as a Howell was an 87, (1) (374 797) invitee. See Lee v. 88 SE2d (1988). Moreover, that Disco Mania and Three Rivers provide had undertaken security patrons to of the bar. “[A] duty] a injury by an invitee from caused [has the employees, persons misconduct of customers if and third there is apprehension reasonable danger from the conduct of said if injury prevented by sons or through could be the the diligence. Ordinarily, exercise of care and even where the proprietor’s shown, negligence he would be insulated from by the illegal proximate intervention of an act which is the cause of injury. inapplicable if the above rule has been held (original appre- defendant wrongdoer) grounds had reasonable hending that such criminal act would be committed.” Mangal Bishop Enterprises, v. Bhai 874, Additionally, proprie- 876 once a tor providing undertakes for invitees it must do in non-negligent so manner. at 877. Id. admits, Three Rivers’ readily Disco Mania’s and majority
As the they allegedly possessed, of the light actions they clearly constitute a breach that Howell had Although majority concludes in the bar after by remaining to him of the Clearly I an issue of material fact agree. Bennett and any potential exists this case as to whether Howell’s This is equal to that of the defendants. danger to Greene, of Mrs. especially purported true on she knew what Bennett the effect that for, yet knowing into Morriss there still let them the bar I Consequently, for life. would re- previously been banned grant summary judgment the trial court’s to Disco Mania and verse should de- Three Rivers because there are issues this case that jury. termined McMurray
I Presiding Judge joins am authorized to state that this dissent. 17, 199 denied March 199 Burton, Williams,
L. Cleveland Keith J. Pritchard, Drew, Farnham, Taylor, Bruce A. Eckl & B. Holland appellees. CENTER, A94A2333. HENRY v. MEDICAL Judge. Andrews, hospi- appeals grant summary judgment from the malpractice
tal her medical suit. Henry,
Viewed in favor of the evidence was with all inferences give 1991 to entered defendant admitted, placed by hospital Upon being birth. an IV was her hand personnel. Henry, hurt According began the IV complained *4 upon being and continued to hurt and she inserted 6,1991 and over the September nurse about it. was released on days point fever around the began having next two she blisters Monday, By Sunday, September sertion. her arm was numb. On September ob/gyn was told to elevate the arm she called her relief, in to see her apply provided heat. When this no she went September begun doctor on 10. Treatment was for cellulitis and 13 for intensive antibiotic admitted to the therapy.