(Citation omitted.) Davis v. All-State Homes Properties, 233 Ga. App. 60, 61 ( 503 S.E.2d 331) (1998). Id.

Because "[n]otice of a defect given by the tenant to the landlord charges the latter with notice of any and all other defects such as might reasonably have been discovered by a compliance with the request for repairs," Hamm cannot escape liability if he could have reasonably discovered the subfloor's defective condition during the course of his inspection. Ball v. Murray, 91 Ga. App. 686, 686, 86 S.E.2d 706, 707 (1955); see also Davis v. All-State Home Properties, 233 Ga. App. 60, 61, 503 S.E.2d 331, 333 (1998). As it is typically for the jury to decide what is reasonable, summary judgment based on Hamm's alleged lack of notice is inappropriate.

The idea that an out-of-possession landlord's knowledge of one condition reasonably should have prompted discovery of another, otherwise hidden defect is sound in theory. See, e. g., Davis v. All-State Homes & Props. , 233 Ga. App. 60, 61, 503 S.E.2d 331 (1998) (landlord's knowledge that recent water leak had rotted some of a trailer's particle-board flooring raised jury issue about whether the landlord "knew or should have known about the latent hazardous condition of the floor's integrity" near the part of the floor that had rotted). But that kind of theory finds no support in the evidence of this case for the reasons we've just discussed.