On May 9, 2003, Delmas Edward Smith was injured when he fell on a stairway constructed by Dabbs-Williams General Contractors, LLC (“Dabbs-Williams”). Mr. Smith and his wife, Robyn, filed the underlying lawsuit, asserting that the stairwаy was negligently constructed. Dabbs-Williams filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the Smiths’ lawsuit was barred by the acceptance doctrine. The trial court grаnted that motion, and this appeal followed. We discern no error and, therefore, affirm.
To prevail on a motion for summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56 (c), the mоving 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. The moving party may carry this burden either by (1) presenting evidence negating an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim, i.e., affirmatively disproving the element with evidence which makes it impossible for the nonmoving party to prove the element at trial; or (2) demonstrating an absence of evidence to support an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim. If the moving party discharges this burdеn, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. On appeal, we reviеw de novo the trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary judgment, construing all facts and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to thе nonmovant.
*647
Cieplinski v. Caldwell Elec. Contractors,
So viewed, the record shows that Crider Poultry, Inc. hired Dabbs-Williams as an independent contractor to construct a new office building and a new employee restroom facility on its property. Crider Poultry also hired Dabbs-Williams to construct a temporary restroom facility to be usеd until the permanent facility was completed.
Dabbs-Williams completed the temporary restroom facility in January or February 2003. The facility includеd a stairway that led to a wooden building housing approximately ten portable toilets. Crider Poultry accepted and paid for the temporary restroom facility, but it instructed Dabbs-Williams to leave its property until it selected a site for the permanent facility. While Dabbs-Williams had anticipаted that the temporary restroom facility would be used for approximately one month, Crider Poultry did not select a site for the permanent fаcility until approximately one year later, at which time Dabbs-Williams constructed such facility.
Following the completion of the temporary rеstroom facility, Crider Poultry contracted with Parrish Portable Toilets, which in turn employed Mr. Smith to service the portable toilets in the temporary faсility. While doing so on the morning of May 9, 2003, Mr. Smith fell on the stairway and landed on the concrete below, injuring his thumb and lower back.
The trial court concluded that thе Smiths’ lawsuit against DabbsWilliams was barred pursuant to the acceptance doctrine. We agree. The “long-established” acceptancе doctrine provides that
where the work of an independent contractor is completed, turned over to, and accepted by the owner, the contractor is not liable to third persons for damages or injuries subsequently suffered by reason of the condition of the work, even though he was negligent in carrying out the contract, at least, if the defect is not hidden but readily observable on reasonable inspection.
(Punctuation and footnote omitted.)
Williams v. Ga. Dept. of Transp.,
*648 1. The Smiths first claim that the acceptance doctrine does not apply because Dabbs-Williams’ work was not completed and turned over to Crider Poultry at the time of Mr. Smith’s accident. They base this allegation on the fact that, approximately one year after finishing work on the temporary restroom facility, Dabbs-Williams returned to the Cridеr Poultry plant in order to complete work on the permanent restroom facility.
Here, the unrefuted evidence showed that Dabbs-Williams completed the temporary restroom facility; that the facility was accepted by Crider Poultry; that Crider Poultry paid Dabbs-Williams for the facility; and that Dabbs-Williams no longer exercised any control over the temporary restroom facility. See
Ogles v. E. A. Mann & Co.,
2. The Smiths also clаim that the acceptance doctrine does not apply because Mr. Smith’s injury resulted from a hidden defect in the stairway. A plaintiff attempting to make a claim under the “hidden defect” exception to the acceptance doctrine must show that the defect existed and was hiddеn at the time the property owner accepted the contractor’s work. See
Pennington v. Cecil N. Brown Co.,
Here, most of the alleged defects in the construсtion of the stairs, such as the lack of a handrail or a landing at the top of the stairway, would have been readily apparent upon a rеasonable inspection and cannot be considered “hidden defects.” See
Williams,
supra,
The only potentially nonapparent defect in the stairs alleged by the Smiths was that “the wooden material used [in construction] ... rotted as a result of over exposure since it was not constructed to last for the time period it was used, thereby causing the step to collapse or pull away from the stairs when [Mr. Smith] descended the stairs.” Howevеr, even if Mr. Smith fell as a result of the wood being “weather-worn,” the Smiths do not contend that the wood was in such condition at the time that Dabbs-Williams turned the facility over to Crider Poultry. Moreover, assuming arguendo that the extended use of the temporary facility caused the wood to became weаther-worn, such extended use resulted from the delay of Crider Poultry in selecting a location for the permanent facility and occurred after Dаbbs-Williams had turned over control of the temporary facility to Crider Poultry.
Given that the Smiths have not come forward with any evidence to show that there existed any hidden construction defects in the stairway at the time Crider Poultry accepted the work of DabbsWilliams, no issue of material fact exists as to whether the “hidden defect” exception to the acceptance doctrine applies in this case. See
Pennington,
supra,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
We note that, while the acceptance dоctrine would not bar a negligence claim by the Smiths against Crider Poultry, it does not appear from the record that the Smiths ever filed such a claim.