*1 deposition previous during Morris’ husband admitted its to the vis- appeared regular he restaurant had observed what to be a Ryan’s practice of clean tiled area around the salad bar. Wit- Ryan’s nesses for both Morris indicated that the floor the res- continuously debris, taurant was checked for debris and such when Applying Mallory, supra, seen, was removed. the standard set forth in any we conclude that the has failed come forward with Ryan’s charged evidence which could be with constructive knowledge any alleged foreign place substance on the floor and time of fall. Morris’ Summary judgment appropriate moving party where the shows judgment he is entitled to as a matter of law and there issue material fact. Minor v. E. F. Hutton & App. 645, 646 The trial court err did not granting summary judgment Ryan’s given record this case. Carley, J., P. concur.
Decided November Overby Cheeley, Butler, Wooten, Butler, & Jr., James E. Peter Daughtery, appellant. J. Sullivan, Hall, Smith, Hall, Jr., Booth John E. David V. Johnson, for PROPERTIES,
A92A1613.MOTEL INC. MILLER. Presiding Carley, appellant-defendant’s Jekyll While an invitee motel appellee-plaintiff Island, night-time decided to take stroll on the Although Georgia, the beach itself is owned the State of sidewalk extends from to- some feet appellant’s property property feet, ward the beach. At 200 the sidewalk crosses line and continues toward the beach for 169 feet across Although owned the state. the sidewalk does not extend to the edge, water’s a sand to the beach at the end of the sidewalk. Across the sand some 27 feet from end of appellee sidewalk, there is a line of boulders. As down walked sign warning the sidewalk toward the there nowas him of the existence of the line of boulders and no illumination of the from Appellee stepped area where those boulders were located. pathway. along end of the sidewalk and continued the sand In the injured. darkness, he stumbled over the boulders and As appellant. After against appellee filed suit injuries, the result of ground on the summary judgment discovery, appellant moved for by appellee not sustained liability injuries were it had no motion, but certified The trial court denied results from the The instant case immediate review. its order for interlocutory appeal. for an appellant’s application grant of *2 invites, or leads another occupier induces 1. the owner or “Where keep care to purpose he must use due his for a lawful to come on land Under the invitee’s use. approaches and safe for premises [OCGA the same, the not the otherwise 51-3-1], premises approaches and are § prem- approaches to those and the language is redundant. Premises keep care to safe.” the owner must use due are the two areas ises Co., 258 Ga. Todd v. F. W. Woolworth (Emphasis original.) 674) (1988). course, (1) (366 premises must consti- “Of the 196 rests, which it [improvement] and lot of land on tute the actual occupier. the or and control of owner under the actual dominion term and is more approaches complex a and bothersome But is more Embry Hills Elmore (Emphasis original.) difficult of definition.” of 923) (1971). Porcher, App. v. 419 favorably appellee, genuine a most Construing the evidence when, he was af- of fact remains as to whether issue material “premises,” granite he stumbled over boulders leaving appellant’s ter premises. The sidewalk led di- “approaches” appellant’s the to the building property across its onto rectly from property pathway sand and the beach on the other state’s and to the to find side the line of boulders. would be authorized of including that entirety the of the sidewalk and sand appel- portion “approach” on the state’s was an between as premises ‘approaches’ lant’s motel and the beach. term “[T]he prefers 51-3-1], approach used to the sidewalk or other § [OCGA to, directly touching premises the contiguous! adjacent Embry Hills v. occupier.” Elmore under the control of the owher or of Porcher, supra at 420. 51- occupier 2. a owner or of land has under “[A]n approach premises his his regard 3-1 with to circumscribed right approach. right approach If in the is an easement ... duty is to use due care toward his invitees in the exercise of than the rights under the easement. He has a more limited framework require permit- him not things owner of a fee. His does riot Co., supra Todd v. F. W. Woolworth ted under easement.” (1). summary judg- appellant, as the movant for
The burden was on ment, that, in the be- right to show the exercise of its care toward tween its motel and the it used due right to remove assuming invitees. Even had them, provide means of or over to access around granite boulders or still remain to whether issue of material fact would genuine post to or to pellant had the illuminate boulders Indeed, ne- their existence. the evidence does not warning sign as to warning possibility that either a source of illumination or a gate placed own would not have been suffi- sign appellant’s duty due care to its invitees who were cient meet of using the between its motel sidewalk sand travel negligence and the “Whether it constituted not to do Co., jury.” for the Todd v. F. things supra these W. Woolworth (1). Spindel “We have Oil considered Gulf It is consistent our here because opinion ... of that indicated case there was [is not] way give effective under circumstances for the defendant warn- of the had to do so.” v. F. ing obstruction it tried W. Woolworth (5). supra at 197 the instant it is not indicated that there way give was no for appellant effective the circumstances boulders, warning placing lighting sign or a warning Thus, either the or its own because issues *3 resolution, correctly of material fact remain for trial court summary denied motion judgment. for concurs and also concurs specially. Johnson, J., concurs specially. Judge, concurring specially.
Johnson,
I am
in
constrained to concur with the
this case as
(366
674) (1988)
v. F. W. Woolworth
In all boundary likelihood the line was not known to the filed, at the time the action was practical and made sense to name both the party discovery, motel and state as During defendants. however, it was path learned that the extended an additional 169 feet across state before it reached the hazard. It was the state which allowed run path dangerous into a condition without erect- fence, ing either a a warning sign, or illuminating the hazard. It makes more sense to me the motel’s would end where the begins particular facts and circumstances of this case.
Certainly the motel could foresee seaside vacationers will path water, however, follow and it is foreseeable that some may Todd, choose so in night. Following the dark of Hack- v. Dayton 180) ett (1989), Hudson is aware of when he of a landowner which holds the thereto, I dangerous or an condition Proper- properly reluctantly agree denied Motel trial court that the summary judgment. ties’ motion special Pope joins Judge in this state I am authorized concurrence. 3, 1992 November
Decided 19, 1992 Johnny Foster, for Forbes, A. Bowman, G. Morton Forbes pellant. Batson, for
John P.
COMPANY
EQUIPMENT
POWER
SNAPPER
A92A1441.
v. CROOK.
393)
(425 SE2d
Cooper,
Georgia
Rycroft,