The application of Joel Properties, Inc., for interlocutory appeal was granted to consider whether Joel, the builder of the home in which Ms. Reed was injured in a fall, was improperly denied summary judgment.
Viewed in favor of the Reeds, opponents of summаry judgment, OCGA § 9-11-56;
Eiberger v. West,
The two men rеtired, leaving Ms. Reed and Ms. Finegan talking in the kitchen. When Ms. Reed decided to retire, she went uр the front staircase and was asked by Ms. Finegan to turn the upstairs hallway light off when she went up. Uрon reaching the top of the stairway, Ms. Reed did so, leaving the hallway in darkness. The switch which she used was located by the front stairway. She then felt her way down the hallway in the dark, using the wall as a guide. She passed one doorway and, believing the next was her bedroom, turned intо the opening and fell down the back stairway, suffering serious injury.
Suit was filed against both Joel Properties and the Finegans claiming negligence. Joel moved for summary judgment, contending that, аs a matter of law, the stairway was not an inherent or dangerous condition or so negligently constructed as to be imminently dangerous to third parties, which must be shown in order to hold a builder-seller liable, absent a showing of fraud or deceit.
1. There is no dispute that the property at issue had been legally conveyed by Joel to the Finegans prior to the incident. The warranty deed was included in the record. Nor is there any dispute that Ms. Reed was fully aware of the rear staircase and had, in fact, traversed it on the evening in question. In resрonse to the motion for summary judgment below, the Reeds contended that the constructiоn of an open stairwell adjacent to a bedroom door constituted a “mantrap,” making summary judgment inappropriate. This contention was premised upon a claimed violation of the Georgia State Building Code, Section 1114.1.5 in that there was no landing on the stairway as required by that section for exit stairways.
The only reference to that Code in the record, however, is its quotation in the brief submitted by the Reeds in opposition to summary judgment. Such a quotation is not evidence, nor is such a rule or regulation a matter of which a court may take judicial notice, when properly requested to do so. OCGA § 24-1-4;
Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Newman,
“Plaintiff cоntends that to build a residence hallway with adjacent doorways to a [bedroom] and а flight of steps is in the nature of
*259
a mantrap, and to so maintain it is ‘a dangerous act being dоne.’ Since stairways and bathrooms, as well as other rooms, customarily open ontо hallways, and since we find no precedent for holding that such construction is negligent . . . [cits.] thе defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been sustained.”
Goodwin v. Mullins,
Even assuming that the stairway was somehow defective, a seller-builder of homes and other structures is not liable for damages resulting from negligent constructiоn absent fraudulent concealment, not applicable here.
Russell v. Cynwid Investments,
2. A second rationale also mandates summary judgment for Joel here. Ms. Reed knew of the alleged “mantrap” stairway and had successfully used it without succumbing to its dangers. See
Francis v. Haygood Contracting,
Judgment reversed.