*1 by claiming If the Stewarts Boen. member, misconduct church allegations support Boen’s miscon- anyone as to their who could knew or should Conference Church and fact that the and the duct “to have at on them misconduct, known it incumbent of this have stating.” party v. Thurmond so from such an affidavit least obtained supra do County 441. The Stewarts Ed., at Bd. Richmond sup- competent record to therefore, there is no so, and against negligent the Church port retention claim for Stewarts’ and Conference. holdings light need not address above, we our
4. In as we of error enumerations and Conference’s Church’s summary judgment they find on all claims. are entitled to Pope, J., Smith, J., concur. P. Decided June Lindsey, Lindsey, Jr., McGuffey,
Goodman, Edward Aust & appellants. Joseph Maguire, Jr., Sullivan, for Leslie S. M. Hauptman, appellees. George Tanner, Michael R. E. HOUSE, INC. A96A0512. TASSEN WAFFLE 545) (472 SE2d Judge. Presiding McMurray, injured day rainy slip Plaintiff Tassen was is a and fall case. This by dining operated defendant Waffle when, at a restaurant after attempted outside stairs constructed House, Inc., she to use some adjacent an motel. her route back to railroad ties which were on by companion a differ- to the restaurant her had walked Plaintiff and immediately time route, for the first so she encountered ent step, plaintiff’s successfully addressing the first her fall. After before step. placed slipped it on the second under her when she foot foreign difficulty seeing sub- and saw no Plaintiff slippery condition of rain to account for the stance other than the steps. summary judgment granted defendant, in favor of A plaintiff appeals. Held: Corp., 110 Ga. Credit cited Gibson v. Consolidated We have often proposition installation of simply accepted material does not constitute an scarcely any slippery there is when wet because it becomes
because might made some- that is not used in construction material be recognized by presence slippery But we have also of water. what may present materials that peril the use of Stephens &c., 215 Ga. v.Ernie’s Steakhouse when wet. judice, In the case we have evidence of sub presented expert’s affi- such an extreme davit has extremely stating ties are wet that railroad and that the at issue are coated creosote because inherently part dangerous, due in the use of *2 knowledge deal with relative of the The issues the parties concerning in the characteristics of the railroad ties used the any by plaintiff pred- recovery of the since construction must be upon superior knowledge perilous of icated mentality. Hadaway the instru- defendant’s Enterprises, 172 114 v. Cooner Ga. 830). (321 plaintiff’s steps, SE2d This was first encounter with the any knowledge suggestion that and there is no she had advanced in that materials had been used the construction of the any appearance Nor is there evidence that the of the stairs. gave any warning finally, beyond And, the fact that were wet. suitability suggestion there is no the lack of of a that railroad ties as material for the construction of outside stairs is a of such matter knowledge plaintiff common that should be assumed to be aware of jury might a Thus, such information. conclude that knowledge particular posed by the stairs of constructed ties, is, that when railroad that wet the stairs would be more even commonly accepted building than if with constructed mater- ials. regularly
There was that evidence defendant cleaned the duty inspect keep premises Defendant was also under to and in the duty inspect premises a safe condition. ‘a “This includes to the to dis- possible dangerous [it] cover conditions of which does not know and precautions protect dangers to take reasonable to the invitee from arrangement premises.’ are which foreseeable the and use of the (322 Begin Championship Wrestling, App. v. Ga. 293, 172 Ga. 294 (4th ed.) (1984), citing § Prosser, 393, SE2d Law of Torts 61.” (416 546). App. Regard- Nuwar, Ga. 184, Barksdale 203 SE2d knowledge concerning less of whether had defendant actual the improper in stairs, use of of construction there is no incapable discovering through that it of this fact rea- (2) inspection. Brant, sonable See Barlow v. 309). purposes summary judgment, Thus, of defendant presumed knowledge must be to have constructive the railroad posed ties hazard in were material for use stairs and by becoming excessively slippery wet. jury concerning
There are issues additional for a certain whether steps, including irreg- of attributes of a absence handrail and applicable risers, ular dimensions of and treads are violations of an building negligence per plain- code so as to constitute se and whether equal allegedly knowledge to conditions was of defective these Steinberger tiff’s Pharmacy, v. Barwick that of defendant. (2) (1), erred It that the state court follows judgment. summary granting motion for in defendant’s JJ, and also concur Ruffin, Johnson and specially. concur
Johnson, concurring specially. Judge, pre- fully agree majority fact I of ties sented as to whether the use railroad dangerous particularly Tassen condition and whether created agree, knowledge superior therefore, that sum- I hazard. separately mary judgment appropriate I in this case. write not not addressed call attention to two of Tassen’s enumerations opinion. (1) holding in that the trial erred that: Tassen contends court neg- handrails constituted whether Waffle House’s failure ligence pro- jury question; was not Waffle House’s failure vide handrails and to height stair treads risers of regulations and width violation Both issues have been amount to se. of these should *3 by jury. resolved hand-
This Court has held that whether the failure jury question. Spencer v. Little rail constitutes is 851) (1992). Properties, We Brownie held that where a have also a landlord’s failure to handrail city requires jury se, must is and that a one the code was violated. See Watts v. Jaffs, decide whether (1995). expert affidavit, In her Tassen’s handrail, that there the treads and risers were of of stated was no irregular dimensions, and that conditions were in violation these spe- Therefore, as those code. as these issues well as cifically opinion, of Waffle addressed jury negligence, including negligence per se, are for the House’s resolve. joins special Judge
I am authorized to state that Ruffin in this concurrence.
Decided June
Jeffrey appellant. Dover,
Croy, appellee. Hammond, Hammond, & A. Harris Cullen