*1 830
A92A1829.RAMIREZ v. KROGER COMPANY. (429 SE2d Prеsiding Judge. Birdsong, appeals summary grant judgment the Eva Ramirez from Kroger arising Kroger Company in The store. The record shows Ms. Ramirez was her lawsuit from a fall a
shopping daughter; her about check when started for were out to look another product top item. After someone told them the a the shelf on nearby way looking product aisle, Ms. Ramirez and went the daughter her location another. While is not Ms. Ramirez the who the it clear told Ms. Ramirez product, giving the benefit the doubt Kroger employee. we assume will that was a produсt, finding tripped however, Before Ms. a tray placed by Kroger employee stocking bread shelves. a aisle high, record shows the bread was four or five inches square, two feet two feet color. The floor of the store is off-white.
Apparently relying Hester, on our decision in Wal-Mart Stores v. 507), App. summary granted 201 Ga. the trial court judgment Kroger. Ramirez, however, claims trial court genuine erred bеcause a issue of material fact exists dis- whether the applies. traction doctrine Held: supra, plaintiff’s
In Wal-Mart Stores v. we hеld that a going shopped mere failure to give where was watch he while he would not application Ramirez, rise of the distraсtion doctrine. Ms. how- argues applies ever, that the distraction doctrine this case because Kroger employee а told her to look on the shelf of aisle three she wanted. recognizes While our law circumstances which Ms. Ramirez might exercising degree from excused of care which the law prudent persons, attempt otherwise holds to Ms. Ramirez’ supported by avoid view doсtrine is not the record. “The plaintiff’s [distraction] [covers] doctrine situations where the atten particularly cause, tion is distractеd natural and usual true where the distraction is there the defendant or where anticipated the defendant in the exercise of сare should have Redding Refining that the Co., distraction would v. occur.” Sinclair 688). liability imposed Thus, be proprietor’s superior knowledge object cause of and of the item in the aisle creating Sears, v. distraction. Roebuck & Co. Chandler, Here, Ms. Ramirez claims she was distracted because an told where the could be found and she was distracted while for it. Nevertheless, the has distraction doctrine its limits. See Froman v. “One valid line cases concerns in the so-called ‘distraction’ existing distinction is self-induced the Where the distraction of thе distraction. lack to excuse no more take the benefit can [her] emergency can excuse safety than one who сreates an [her] Co., Redding Refining v. Sinclair himself because of its existence.” instance, In shows that Ms. Ramirez supra at 378-379. *2 not product when she fell and that she did looking was not at the looking for could be she was told the she was even fall where conflict, shows, Instead, that she fеll while found. without location, diagrams prepared way according that to on her to witnesses, point at a where she could nоt even see the location by the circumstances, placed. Under the on the shelf where the item was ordinary care for hеr record shows that Ms. Ramirez failed to exercise Therefore, safety recovery injuries. sufficient to bar for her this supra Wal-Mart Stores v. at 478-479. appeal is controlled Accordingly, plain view doctrine controls: under “[0]ne plain in duty walking large objects and to see to look where [she] they customarily placed and view which are at a location where are be; duty may expeсted performing to not amount to a failure to ordinary safety recovery would bar a for re exercise care for onе’s as Stores, Stenhouse v. sulting injuries.” Winn Dixie in put have the to cartons 474-475 Merchants stocked, may expect being aisles while shelves are and customers aisles, in objects place find such but merchants must articles they danger using where do not threaten to those the aisle аnd where sight Big Apple Super are in Market full and observation. of Briggs, Rome v. This record tray item, in placed large shows the bread the аisle was a rather tray color of the contrasted with the off-white color of Further, Therefore, tray placed the floor. in was full view. the trial by granting summary judgment court did not err to Kroger. Andrews, Judgment J., Pope, C. Johnson and Black- affirmed.
burn, JJ., J., JJ., Carley, Beasley concur. P. and Cooper, dissent. J., McMurray, disqualified. P.
Beasley, Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. dolly
There is evidence that the brought had out a eight trays containing products placed to be ten breаd stocked. She directly in cap trays front of an end and took one of the from it and put in cap, separated front of the сenter end aisles two and says three. was for a which she employees in As she came around said aisle three. three, tray from aisle two to aisle she did not see the bread on the floor, it, stepped and fell. It was not an obstruction which the cus- distance, of where coming
tomer could see from a because she was from. “ place must such merchant so articles so as not ‘[T]he danger threaten those the aisle and so that are full (Cit.)” Big sight everyone.’ Apple and within the observation 385) Briggs, Super Market Rome v. Ga. (1960). low, obstruсtion, way large Whether this in a person rounding expected which a the corner would be not to see or anticipate it, tripped by being before and whether exercised in failing care to discover the obstruction which she sud it, denly upon came tripping jury questions and to avoid are case. Should Ms. Ramirez have discovered the bread ordinary care, exercise before it? stumbling question on tois “in light circumstances,” be determined Big attendant Ap ple, supra, say I so, and cannot that she should have done as a matter of law. Issues negligence, diligence, and exercise protection, except cases, for one’s and indisputable ordinarily jury. аre Lewis, decided Church’s Fried Chicken v. App. 154, (1979). I am authorized to Judge Cooper joins state that in this dissent. *3 1993.
Decided March Hawkins, Herman, Freeman & Alan F. Scoggin, William G. appellant.
Webb, Carlock, Stair, Copeland, & Stair, Semler Kent T. Lisa M. appellee.
A92A1862. COX et al. v. REWIS et al. Judge.
Beasley, Betty Rewis and her husband sued Martin Cox and his mother injuries by sustained Mrs. Rewis a motor vehicle collision caused the negligence of Martin $30,000 Cox. The jury awarded Rewis, Mrs. agreement parties $25,000 reduced $5,000 because of in PIP insurance benefits received Mrs. Rewis. plaintiffs’ evidence was as follows: Mrs. Rewis testified that in 1988 she began complaints having pain between her shoulders running down her arm into She hand. did not know the symptoms, although they these began working whеn she was quality as a control inspector bending down and her arms and pick up hands to physician, McRae, shirts. Her family Dr. referred Cannon, her to Dr. neurosurgeon. In January Dr. Cannon