 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Val D'Aosta Co. v. Cross12/3/1999
WHOLE COURT
This case is a premises liability action, involving a user with disabilities in a wheelchair. The issue presented is whether mere prior use by the disabled person gives her equal knowledge to the owner/occupier of a specific static defect that the regulations and guidelines prohibit as dangerous, when the owner/occupier is under a continuing statutory mandate to provide a safe handicap access ramp, defect free and compliant with detailed regulations and guidelines to protect the disabled in use of the ramp, and when, in fact, the ramp is non-compliant, creating a static dangerous defect specifically prohibited by the regulations. We find that the owner/occupier has superior knowledge under such facts and circumstances.
Plaintiff, Roberta Cross, who is confined to a wheelchair by arthritis, stayed at a motel owned and operated by Val D'Aosta Company. To gain access to her room, Cross had to use one of two disability access ramps, and the ramp nearest her room had a leading edge without beveling where it met the parking lot surface and had a difference in levels between the ramp and the surrounding parking lot that was greater than one-quarter inch, creating a ramp lip. Such conditions constituted non-compliance with the ANSI standards, as testified to by plaintiffs' architect-expert witness by affidavit. This ramp was ascended and descended several times by Cross in her wheelchair with assistance from relatives during her stay without problem. On return to her room, while being pushed by a relative, the front wheels of the wheelchair caught on the ramp lip for the first time, turning the front wheels so that they stopped moving forward, and throwing Cross out of the wheelchair and injuring her. The specific guidelines and regulations prohibited the small lip between the ramp and the walk to prevent this very risk of just such occurrence.
Val D'Aosta Company contends that the trial court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment. We do not agree.
As a matter of law, Val D'Aosta Company, as owner of a place of public accommodation and a public building, had knowledge of the condition of the disabled access ramp that was superior to the knowledge of the plaintiff, as a person with disabilities who had merely used the ramp previously. This is because OCGA § 30-3-8, with criminal sanctions for non-compliance, mandated compliance with any regulation promulgated under OCGA § 30-3-1 et seq. by the owner/occupier and required specific knowledge of the condition of the ramp and its compliance or non-compliance by the owner/occupier. The American National Standards Institute ("ANSI") specifications A117.1-1986 and the Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities ("ADAAG") constitute the regulations with which the public building owner/occupier must comply to avoid criminal sanctions and know for the protection of the elderly persons and with disabilities. As owner/occupier of this motel, Val D'Aosta Company had such superior knowledge through its employees, because the mandate applied to " ny person, firm, or corporation who violates this chapter." OCGA § 30-3-8. Clearly, a jury issue arises that Cross came within the definition of a person with disabilities, being wheelchair confined by her musculo-skeletal condition.
Under the first of the two prongs of Alterman Foods v. Ligon, 246 Ga. 620, 622-623 (272 SE2d 327) (1980) ("Alterman"), the owner/occupier must have superior knowledge of the static condition on the premises that is alleged to create a dangerous defect as well as be negligent in creating or maintaining such condition. As to the superior knowledge aspect of this first prong, the statutes and
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Georgia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|