OCGA ยง 34-7-20.Thomas Fuller cites Elsberry v. Ivey , 209 Ga.App. 620, 434 S.E.2d 158 (1993), a premises liability case, for the proposition that the duties of OCGA ยง 34-7-20 do not apply to employees on construction or demolition sites. In Elsberry , the plaintiff was injured while engaged in the demolition of a roof, which, as the work progressed, created danger of which the plaintiff knew or which he should have anticipated.
Nor does it argue on appeal that it was entitled to summary judgment because the inherent nature of demolition itself created the hazard. See Elsberry v. Ivey , 209 Ga. App. 620, 621 (2) (a), 434 S.E.2d 158 (1993). Thus, we do not consider these arguments.
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Elsberry v. Ivey , 209 Ga.App. 620, 621, 434 S.E.2d 158 (1993). QT and Thompson assert that the parking lot itself is not a dangerous place.
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Elsberry v. Ivey, 209 Ga.App. 620, 621(2)(a), 434 S.E.2d 158 (1993). Based on this precedent, as Wilson and her crew removed the damaged subfloor as part of their bathroom repair job, thereby exposing the damaged floor joists, Wilson was responsible for inspecting the work area and determining for herself whether it was safe to remain standing on the joists.
Accordingly, there is no merit in Madeira Glenn's claim that the trial court's ruling placed a higher burden on Glenn than he would otherwise have had if the court had not determined that he was an independent contractor. See Odister, supra at 108โ109, 570 S.E.2d 391;Elsberry v. Ivey, 209 Ga.App. 620, 621โ622(2)(a), (b), (c), 434 S.E.2d 158 (1993). 2.
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Elsberry v. Ivey, 209 Ga. App. 620, 621 (2) (b) ( 434 SE2d 158) (1993). CCR relies upon a number of cases in which this Court applied this exception to uphold a judgment for the property owner as a matter of law.
This case is distinguished from Howell v. Farmers Peanut Market c., 212 Ga. App. 610 ( 442 S.E.2d 904), where the dangers encountered by a plaintiff in hoisting a motor on a peanut elevator were as well known to him as to the owner; moreover, that plaintiff did not exercise ordinary care to look for the particular defect which harmed him. This case is also distinguished from Elsberry v. Ivey, 209 Ga. App. 620 ( 434 S.E.2d 158), where demolition of a roof necessarily loosened nails and created danger which the plaintiff knew of and should have anticipated. In Elsberry, we held that where the injured servant was hired for the express purpose of assisting in demolition, and the unsafe conditions from which injury resulted "arose from or were incidental to the work undertaken by him" ( Louisville c. R. Co. v. Dunn, 21 Ga. App. 379 (1) ( 94 S.E. 661)), the general rule that an owner or occupier of land has a duty to keep his premises safe for workers (OCGA ยง 51-3-1) does not apply. This is a proper result.
However, an exception to the general rule exists where workers are hired to perform work which makes safe a place known to be dangerous or which in its progress necessarily changes the character for safety to the place in which it is performed as the work progresses. Elsberry v. Ivey, 209 Ga. App. 620, 621 ( 434 S.E.2d 158). Another exception to the general rule of proprietors' liability arises with the doctrine of assumption of risk. This doctrine applies where the plaintiff, with a full appreciation of the danger and without restriction from his freedom of choice either by the circumstances or by coercion, deliberately chooses an obviously perilous course of conduct.
Smith v. Tommy Roberts Trucking Co., 209 Ga. App. 826, 828 (2) ( 435 S.E.2d 54) (1993). Viewing the evidence most favorably to Bradford as the non-movant, Elsberry v. Ivey, 209 Ga. App. 620 (1) ( 434 S.E.2d 158) (1993), McCormick was traveling between 70 and 80 mph in a 55 mph zone in wet conditions when his van crossed the grass median which divided the highway and struck Bradford's vehicle. On deposition, McCormick did not deny speeding or crossing the median, although he could not recall exactly what happened just before or after the collision.
"' Holland v. Durham Coal c. Co., 131 Ga. 715, 719 ( 63 S.E. 290)." Elsberry v. Ivey, 209 Ga. App. 620, 621 ( 434 S.E.2d 158). "The safe work place rule presupposes a static area where work is performed on a regular basis.