From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Blackwell v. Bell's Food Market, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Dec 4, 2002
575 S.E.2d 703 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002)

Opinion

A02A2305.

DECIDED: DECEMBER 4, 2002 Reconsideration Denied December 17, 2002

Slip and fall. Lincoln Superior Court. Before Judge Davis.

Victor Hawk, for appellant.

Hull, Towill, Norman, Barrett Salley, James S.V. Weston, George R. Hall, for appellee.


Thomas Blackwell was standing in a check-out 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 knowledge of the condition that caused his fall was equal to Bell's knowledge, we affirm the trial court's summary judgment ruling.

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. The true ground of liability is the defendant's superior knowledge of the hazard.

Robinson v. Kroger, 268 Ga. 735, 748-749(2)(b) ( 493 S.E.2d 403) (1997).

McCoy v. West Bldg. Materials., 232 Ga. App. 620, 621 ( 502 S.E.2d 559) (1998).

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 can not 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. 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. Judgment affirmed. Blackburn, C. J., and Miller, J., concur.

Gresham v. Bell's Food Market, 244 Ga. App. 240, 241 ( 534 S.E.2d 537) (2000).

See Yasinsac v. Colonial Oil Properties, 246 Ga. App. 484, 486(3) ( 541 S.E.2d 109) (2000).


DECIDED DECEMBER 4, 2002 — RECONSIDERATION DENIED DECEMBER 17, 2002 — CERT. APPLIED FOR.


Summaries of

Blackwell v. Bell's Food Market, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Dec 4, 2002
575 S.E.2d 703 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002)
Case details for

Blackwell v. Bell's Food Market, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:BLACKWELL v. BELL'S FOOD MARKET, INC

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Dec 4, 2002

Citations

575 S.E.2d 703 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002)
575 S.E.2d 703

Citing Cases

The Right Inc. v. Gilchrist

See also Blackwell v. Bell's Food Market (summary judgment required for "[t]he simple fact . . . that…