Blackwell v. Bell's Food Market, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Blackwell v. Bell's Food Market, Inc.

575 S.E.2d 703, 258 Ga. App. 901, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 3683, 2002 Ga. App. LEXIS 1550

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 4, 2002

DocketA02A2305

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 575 S.E.2d 703 (Blackwell v. Bell's Food Market, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blackwell v. Bell's Food Market, Inc., 575 S.E.2d 703, 258 Ga. App. 901, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 3683, 2002 Ga. App. LEXIS 1550 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Johnson, Presiding Judge.

Thomas Blackwell was standing in a checkout line at Bell’s Food Market when he saw a puddle of blood on the floor. Blackwell watched as an employee of the store wiped up the puddle with paper towels. Blackwell then walked forward, stepped on the spot where the puddle had been, slipped and fell to the floor.

Blackwell sued Bell’s Food Market, Inc. for injuries allegedly sustained in his fall. Bell’s moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted the motion. Blackwell appeals. Since his knowl[902]*902edge of the condition that caused his fall was equal to Bell’s knowledge, we affirm the trial court’s summary judgment ruling.

Decided December 4, 2002 Reconsideration denied December 17, 2002 Victor Hawk, for appellant. Hull, Towill, Norman, Barrett & Salley, James S.V. Weston, George R. Hall, for appellee.

In order to recover for injuries sustained in a slip and fall action, the plaintiff must prove (1) that the defendant knew of the hazard, and (2) that the plaintiff, despite the exercise of ordinary care, lacked knowledge of the hazard due to actions or conditions within the control of the defendant.¹ The true ground of liability is the defendant’s superior knowledge of the hazard.²

In the instant case, there is no question that Bell’s knew of the hazard since its employee wiped up the puddle with paper towels. But there also is no question that Blackwell knew of the hazard since he admitted at his deposition that he saw the puddle, watched the Bell’s employee clean it up and then stepped right on the spot where he had seen the puddle. Accordingly, Blackwell cannot make the required showing that he lacked knowledge of the hazard. The simple fact is that Blackwell had actual knowledge of the hazard which caused his fall.³ Because there is no genuine issue of material fact that Bell’s did not have knowledge of the hazard superior to Blackwell’s knowledge of it, the trial court correctly granted summary judgment to Bell’s.⁴

Judgment affirmed.

Blackburn, C. J., and Miller, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Johnson, Presiding Judge.

Thomas Blackwell was standing in a checkout line at Bell’s Food Market when he saw a puddle of blood on the floor. Blackwell watched as an employee of the store wiped up the puddle with paper towels. Blackwell then walked forward, stepped on the spot where the puddle had been, slipped and fell to the floor.

Blackwell sued Bell’s Food Market, Inc. for injuries allegedly sustained in his fall. Bell’s moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted the motion. Blackwell appeals. Since his knowl[902]*902edge of the condition that caused his fall was equal to Bell’s knowledge, we affirm the trial court’s summary judgment ruling.

Decided December 4, 2002 Reconsideration denied December 17, 2002 Victor Hawk, for appellant. Hull, Towill, Norman, Barrett & Salley, James S.V. Weston, George R. Hall, for appellee.

In order to recover for injuries sustained in a slip and fall action, the plaintiff must prove (1) that the defendant knew of the hazard, and (2) that the plaintiff, despite the exercise of ordinary care, lacked knowledge of the hazard due to actions or conditions within the control of the defendant.¹ The true ground of liability is the defendant’s superior knowledge of the hazard.²

In the instant case, there is no question that Bell’s knew of the hazard since its employee wiped up the puddle with paper towels. But there also is no question that Blackwell knew of the hazard since he admitted at his deposition that he saw the puddle, watched the Bell’s employee clean it up and then stepped right on the spot where he had seen the puddle. Accordingly, Blackwell cannot make the required showing that he lacked knowledge of the hazard. The simple fact is that Blackwell had actual knowledge of the hazard which caused his fall.³ Because there is no genuine issue of material fact that Bell’s did not have knowledge of the hazard superior to Blackwell’s knowledge of it, the trial court correctly granted summary judgment to Bell’s.⁴

Judgment affirmed.

Blackburn, C. J., and Miller, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

575 S.E.2d 703, 258 Ga. App. 901, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 3683, 2002 Ga. App. LEXIS 1550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blackwell-v-bells-food-market-inc-gactapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack