 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Murray v. West Building Materials of Georgia5/5/2000
BA-010
This appeal arises from a personal injury suit filed by Barbara Murray as a result of injuries she received when she fell while descending steps at West Building Materials of Georgia. Murray contends on appeal that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to West. For reasons that follow, we reverse.
On appeal from the grant of summary judgment, this Court conducts a de novo review of the record, construing the evidence and all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Maddox v. Southern Engineering, 231 Ga. App. 802 (500 SE2d 591) (1998). Viewed in this light, the record shows that Murray ascended West's concrete front steps, shopped inside the store, then began descending the steps to leave. She held the right handrail until it ended short of the last step, then let go and stepped down on her right foot. She testified that "the stair got there too quick," that the "pattern" changed, and her foot turned. She heard a snap and saw bone protruding from her ankle under her skin. She stepped off the injured foot, then twisted her left ankle and fell to her knees.
West moved for summary judgment, arguing that it did not have actual or constructive knowledge of any hazardous condition, and further arguing that Murray failed to exercise ordinary care on her own behalf. Murray opposed the motion with deposition testimony from George Baird, a structural engineer, who averred that West's front steps and handrail deviated from the requirements of the applicable building code. The risers of the top four steps were eight inches tall, a quarter of an inch more than the maximum allowed height. The fifth step was a quarter of an inch shorter than the top four, and the last step was almost three inches shorter than the second-to-last one. Further, the tread width and riser height together fell outside the acceptable limits of the building code. Finally, the handrail beside the steps failed to extend 12 inches past the bottom step, as required, but instead stopped short at the second-to-last step. These defects, the expert concluded, could have caused Murray's fall. In granting summary judgment to West, the trial court concluded that no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding Murray's claim.
In Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735, 748-49 (2) (b) (493 SE2d 403) (1997), our Supreme Court reiterated that,
in order to recover for injuries sustained in a slip-and-fall action, an invitee must prove (1) that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard; and (2) that the plaintiff lacked knowledge of the hazard despite the exercise of ordinary care due to actions or conditions within the control of the owner.
Robinson also lightened the evidentiary load placed upon slip-and-fall plaintiffs opposing a summary judgment by requiring a defendant to produce evidence showing negligence on the part of the plaintiff before the plaintiff is required to produce rebuttal evidence on this issue. Id. at 749.
With respect to the first prong, Murray presented evidence that the steps were constructed in 1995 and had been used continuously since then. This evidence, combined with the expert testimony, is sufficient for a fact finder to infer that the steps were a hazardous condition of which West had actual or constructive knowledge. Flournoy v. Hospital Auth. of Houston County, 232 Ga. App. 791 (504 SE2d 198) (1998). Therefore, for purposes of summary judgment, plaintiff has satisfied the first prong of the Robinson test. Id. at 792.
With respect to the second prong, Murray's lack of knowledge of the hazard, Robinson held that a plaintiff's evidentiary burden on this issue does not arise "until the defe
Page 1 2 Georgia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|