Beard v. Audio Visual Svcs., Inc.

2 Citing cases

  1. Cabrera v. Ellis

    358 Ga. App. 396 (Ga. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    See also Lipham v. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc. , 263 Ga. 865, 440 S.E.2d 193 (1994) (stating that because the case presented a question of active negligence, "whether [the plaintiff], who was on the property lawfully, is a licensee or an invitee is irrelevant and does nothing to diminish [the defendant]’s general duty of care towards [the plaintiff]."). Turning to Cabrera's claim of error, Cabrera argues here as she did below that this Court's decision in Beard v. Audio Visual Svcs., Inc. , 260 Ga. App. 476, 580 S.E.2d 272 (2003) established a duty for Ellis to exercise reasonable care to move and walk in a prudent manner so as to avoid colliding with others. We agree.

  2. Gen. Star Indem. Co. v. Triumph Hous. Mgmt., LLC

    No. 20-10165 (11th Cir. May. 13, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    Whether a party has exercised ordinary diligence is generally a question for the jury, except where the evidence is "plain, palpable and undisputable." Weeks v. Remington Arms Co., 733 F.2d 1485, 1490 (11th Cir. 1984); see Beard v. Audio Visual Servs., Inc., 580 S.E.2d 272, 273 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003) ("What constitutes ordinary diligence, under any particular circumstances, is a question for the jury."). A partial exception to the duty to read applies "where the agent, acting in a fiduciary relationship with the insured, holds himself out as an expert in the field of insurance and performs expert services on behalf of the insured under circumstances in which the insured 'must rely [up]on the expertise of the agent to identify and procure the correct amount or type of insurance.'"