Indeed, there is no evidence "as to how long the [railing] had existed in that [unattached] condition." City of Atlanta v. Dale , 353 Ga. App. 817, 819 (2), 840 S.E.2d 56 (2020). The deponent who testified that the management company shook the railing explained that the company's belief that it was intact was only a lay opinion and that the company would not have inspected the ends of the railing to determine if it was actually affixed to the porch structure.

See City of Savannah , 343 Ga. App. at 430-431, 808 S.E.2d 416 (questions of fact remained as to whether a tree in a city right-of-way was a "defect" for purposes of OCGA § 32-4-93 and as to whether the city had notice of that defect). Compare City of Atlanta v. Dale , 353 Ga. App. 817, 819 (2), 840 S.E.2d 56 (2020) (reversing the denial of a city's motion for directed verdict when there was no evidence that the city was chargeable with knowledge of a deteriorated manhole cover). The same is true of the question of plaintiff's knowledge and alleged contributory negligence, issues which are also reserved for the jury, because the evidence outlined above, including the fact that this incident occurred during the early morning hours when visibility was diminished, does not show that "plaintiff's knowledge of the risk and lack of due care [was] clear and palpable."