Georgia Insurance Defense Lawyer Blog

Posted by Wm. Daniel Floyd

Jean Benton slipped and fell at the Southeast Georgia Medical Center after leaving her Doctor’s appointment. The accident occurred in the lobby of the Medical Center. She stated it was only at the time of her fall that she felt the floor was slick. As a result of her slip and fall, she suffered a serious injury to her right shoulder.

The issue in this case was whether the Medical Center failed to protect Ms. Benton from a dangerous condition. A business owner has a statutory duty to protect its invitees or guests from dangerous conditions by keeping its building or land in a reasonably safe condition. In this case, like other slip and fall cases, Ms. Benton, as the invitee, had the burden to show that a dangerous condition existed and what that condition was which caused her to fall. The Medical Center moved for summary judgment, arguing that Ms. Benton failed to provide evidence showing that her injury was a result of a dangerous condition. The trial court denied the motion and the medical center appealed to the Georgia Court of Appeals. Glynn-Brunswick Mem’l Hosp. Auth. v. Benton, 2010 Ga. App. LEXIS 344; 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 1222 (2010).

Continue reading "GEORGIA COURT OF APPEALS RULES PLAINTIFF MUST DO MORE THAN SPECULATE AS TO CAUSE OF A SLIP AND FALL" »

Posted by H. Lee Pruett

In Rutherford v. Revco, Case No. A09A1331 (Ga. Ct. App., Nov. 24, 2009), and Nosiri v. Helm, Case No. A09A1563 (Ga. Ct. App., Dec. 1, 2009), the Georgia Court of Appeals rendered questionable decisions denying the defendants summary judgment in cases where the plaintiffs appeared to have equal knowledge of the hazardous condition. These cases point out the increasing difficulty premises liability defendants face in convincing the court that they should prevail as a matter of law.

Continue reading "TWO RECENT DECISIONS BY GEORGIA COURT OF APPEALS SHOW COURT’S INCREASING RELUCTANCE TO GRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN TRIP AND FALL CASES" »

Posted by H. Lee Pruett

In a premises liability case, it is essential to establish the status of the plaintiff to determine the duty owed by the property owner. A recent case in the Georgia Court of Appeals illustrates the critical distinction between an invitee and a licensee. In Jarrell v. JDC & Associates, LLC, 296 Ga. App. 523 (2009), the Court agreed that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff was a licensee, not an invitee.

Continue reading "GEORGIA COURT OF APPEALS RE-EMPHASIZES IMPORTANCE OF DETERMINING STATUS OF PLAINTIFF IN PREMISES LIABILITY CLAIM" »

Posted by H. Lee Pruett

In American Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. Brown, 285 Ga. 442 (2009), the Georgia Supreme Court held that a sign warning of a hazard can constitute a hazard itself. In this case, the plaintiff was a customer in the defendant’s movie theater. On the day of the accident, the theater was crowded and moments before the movie was over, the defendant’s employees placed a “wet floor” sign over a spill just outside the theater’s exit door. As the crowd left the theater, the sign collapsed. Because of the press of people, the plaintiff did not see the sign lying flat on the floor. She tripped on the sign, fell to the floor, and sustained serious injuries. She filed suit against the theater, alleging negligence.

Continue reading "GEORGIA SUPREME COURT RULES THAT A “WET FLOOR” SIGN CAN ITSELF BE A HAZARD AND EXPOSE A PROPERTY OWNER TO LIABILITY" »

Posted by Jonathan A. Barash

Georgia courts have developed a four-part test to determine whether an owner of recreational property has acted “willfully or maliciously” in causing injuries to people using the property: First, the owner must have had knowledge that the property was being used for recreational purposes. Second, the owner must have had knowledge that a condition existed on the property involving unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm. Third, the condition must not have been apparent to those using the property. Finally, the owner must have chosen not to guard or warn, in disregard of the possible consequences. Significantly, in order to be found liable under this “willful or malicious” standard, the property owner must have “actual knowledge” of the hazard, rather than the much easier to prove “constructive knowledge” standard that exists in the usual premises liability situation. Further, under the Recreational Property Act, no affirmative duty to inspect the premises is imposed on the property owner.

This law strikes a balance by providing an incentive for property owners to make their land available to the public for recreational purposes, while still providing some remedy to injured parties for egregious conduct.

Posted by Jonathan A. Barash

With the increase in premises liability litigation over the past 50 years, it is understandable that property owners would be cautious about letting others enter their lands for recreational purposes. In an effort to encourage property owners in Georgia to make their land and water areas available to the public for recreational purposes, Georgia, in 1965, enacted the Recreational Property Act which limits the liability of owners and occupiers of such property for injuries suffered by persons using the property. O.C.G.A. § 51-3-20 et seq.

Continue reading "PREMISES LIABILITY AND GEORGIA’S RECREATIONAL PROPERTY ACT – Part 1 of a 2-Part Series" »

Posted by H. Lee Pruett

Applying well-established law and rules of evidence, the Georgia Court of Appeals recently affirmed summary judgment for a tenant and the landlord in a premises liability case in which the plaintiff was assaulted and robbed in a shopping center parking lot. In Drayton v. Kroger Co., Case No. A08A1935 (Ga. Ct. App., Mar. 2, 2009), the plaintiff bought groceries at the defendant Kroger in a shopping center in Fayetteville, Georgia, and was attacked by a person unconnected to either defendant as she was putting the groceries away in the trunk of her car. The trial court granted summary judgment to both defendants.

Continue reading "GEORGIA COURT OF APPEALS RULES PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE EITHER TENANT GROCERY STORE OR LANDLORD IS LIABLE FOR CUSTOMER ASSAULT IN PARKING LOT" »