Articles Posted in Slip and Fall

Recently, a Georgia woman filed a lawsuit against a hotel after she sustained injuries when she slipped and fell on a wet sidewalk outside of the hotel. The hotel appealed after a trial court denied its motion for summary judgment. The appellate court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff had superior knowledge of the hazardous condition and if she assumed the risk of the hazard.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff and her grandchildren were staying at the hotel when they decided to go to the pool after dinner. After spending time at the pool, the plaintiff and her grandson decided to go back to their room. They took the same path to the hotel room that they had taken on their way to the pool. The woman’s grandson did not dry off and was walking in front of the plaintiff when the woman noticed that part of the sidewalk’s surface was peeling off. She warned her grandson to slow down, however, she ended up slipping and falling, resulting in serious injuries.

The woman filed a negligence lawsuit seeking to recover for the damages she suffered as a result of her fall. In support of her claim, she provided an expert affidavit, which stated that the defendant failed to maintain the sidewalk safely. The expert opined that the sidewalk’s deteriorated paint increased the likelihood that it would become slick and unsafe when it was wet.

The availability of evidence in a Georgia personal injury case can often make or break a lawsuit, especially when a party is acting in reliance on the opposition for certain information pertinent to the case. Unfortunately, bad actors will occasionally engage in the “spoliation of the evidence,” which can often have significant consequences in the course of a lawsuit.

In Georgia, “spoliation of evidence” can arise in many settings. According to Georgia law, spoliation involves “the destruction or failure to preserve evidence that is necessary to contemplated or pending litigation.” This could mean that an individual purposely destroyed or chose not to preserve necessary evidence – common examples are intentionally getting rid of camera footage or destroying paperwork.  In addition, the evidence in question must be necessary and serve a central purpose in the case. A spoliation of the evidence claim can only prevail if the individual in control of the evidence is aware that there is or could be a lawsuit. As long as a claim is “reasonably foreseeable,” then they are responsible for saving relevant documents and materials.

In a recent Georgia Court of Appeals decision, a couple sued a restaurant entity for negligence after their minor son was injured on an outdoor restaurant playground at one of the restaurant’s franchise locations. While waiting on a table, the children played on the outdoor playground. It was a sunny, 80- to 90-degree day, and one of the plaintiffs concluded that the floor was “pretty warm, but no big deal.” Soon after, he discovered that the bottom of his 19-month-old son’s feet were badly burned. His son was subsequently taken to a local emergency room for treatment.

We’ve all seen a “wet floor” sign at some point in our lives. Maybe you’ve even been unlucky and slipped on an unknown substance while grocery shopping. When slip and fall accidents occur as a result of another’s negligence, the business or individual who owns the property may be held liable through a Georgia premises liability lawsuit.

In a recent Georgia Court of Appeals decision, a plaintiff slipped and fell on a wet floor at the Atlanta airport where she was employed and sued the defendant for negligence, arguing that the defendant had superior knowledge of the slippery floor and a duty to warn her of the hazard. Because they failed to warn her, the plaintiff argued that the defendant breached its duty and failed to exercise ordinary care.

On the day of the incident, the plaintiff had completed her shift in the airport atrium and proceeded down the escalator to stop at an office to turn in her paperwork and cash. As she stepped off the escalator, she noticed a man cleaning the floors to her left and a “wet floor” sign posted nearby. As she was walking to the office, she turned to the right and slipped and fell. Landing on her right side, she hit her head and briefly lost consciousness. When she regained consciousness, her clothes were wet, but there was no visible water on the floor and there were no visible wet floor signs near where she fell. Following the accident, the plaintiff suffered from blurred vision and significant neck and spinal injuries that required surgery. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.

In a recent appellate opinion, a Georgia slip and fall injury victim appealed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a store owner. On appeal, the woman argued that the trial court erred in finding that the store did not contain a dangerous condition, that she possessed knowledge of the defects, and that the distraction theory could not apply.

The case stems from injuries that the woman suffered when she visited the store. The woman’s neighbor drove her to the store and parked her car on the side of the store. The parking lot contained parking abutments in the parking spaces; parking for disabled vehicles had blue abutments. When the woman was leaving the store, she walked by a sidewalk display and became distracted by the display racks and other customers. As she stepped down from the sidewalk, she hit a slanted parking abutment and fell forward, suffering serious injuries to her knee, elbow, and head. Her lawsuit against the store alleged that the store breached its duty to keep their property safe.

Under Georgia law, premises liability plaintiffs must show that their injuries were the result of a hazard on an owner’s premises that they should have removed in the exercise of ordinary care. The two main elements that Georgia slip and fall or trip and fall victims must establish is that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard, and the plaintiff, despite exhibiting ordinary care, lacked knowledge of the danger because of the defendant. Moreover, where static conditions are at issue, if a person has previously successfully negotiated the condition, the person is presumed to have equal knowledge, and therefore cannot recover for subsequent resulting injuries. Further, if nothing obstructs the injury victim’s view, the owner may appropriately assume that the invitee will realize any associated risks. In these instances, plaintiffs may assert the distraction theory. The distraction theory includes situations where the plaintiff’s attention is distracted because of a natural and usual cause. However, merely failing to look ahead will not relieve their responsibility.

A state appellate court recently issued an opinion addressing an issue that frequently comes up in premises liability cases.  Specifically, the case involved the “superior knowledge” requirement.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff suffered injuries when he fell through a skylight that he was dismantling at a church. The church recently purchased a building from a defunct hospital, and the plaintiff, another church member, and a pastor undertook the disassembling. The plaintiff volunteered to remove the structure based on his previous experience working with a contractor to rebuild a shed at his house. The pastor at the church used a forklift to lift the plaintiff and the other church member onto the roof. No one was wearing a hardhat or any other safety harnesses. The plaintiff did not hear a warning to watch out for a skylight and subsequently fell through the light and suffered severe injuries. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the church and the hospital. He alleged that the church was liable because he was an invitee of the church, so the hospital and the church owed him a duty to exercise reasonable care to make sure that the roof was safe.

Under Georgia law, the crux of a premises liability lawsuit often hinges on the property owner’s superior knowledge of the dangerous condition. Plaintiffs cannot recover damages if they could have avoided their injuries by exercising ordinary care. Furthermore, Georgia courts generally look at whether the plaintiff exhibited common sense to prevent their injuries. Usually, Georgia slip and fall cases involve two types of cases:  static defect claims and foreign substance claims.