Motel Properties v. Miller

18 Citing cases

  1. Six Flags Over Ga. II, L.P. v. Martin

    335 Ga. App. 350 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 8 times
    Concluding that this rule did not survive enactment of the apportionment statute

    Furthermore, the term "approaches," as used in OCGA ยง 51โ€“3โ€“1, has been construed to meanMotel Props., Inc. v. Miller, 263 Ga. 484, 485(1), 436 S.E.2d 196 (1993), citing Todd v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 258 Ga. 194, 197(1), 366 S.E.2d 674 (1988). that property directly contiguous, adjacent to, and touching those entryways to premises under the control of an owner or occupier of land, through which the owner or occupier, by express or implied invitation, has induced or led others to come upon his premises for any lawful purpose, and through which such owner or occupier could foresee a reasonable invitee would find it necessary or convenient to traverse while entering or exiting in the course of the business for which the invitation was extended.

  2. Drucker v. Morgan

    900 S.E.2d 204 (Ga. Ct. App. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    that property directly contiguous, adjacent to, and touching those entryways to premises under the control of an owner or occupier of land, through which the owner or occupier, by express or implied invitation, has induced or led others to come upon his premises for any lawful purpose, and through which such owner or occupier could foresee a reasonable invitee would find it necessary or convenient to traverse while entering or exiting in the course of the business for which the invitation was extended. Motel Properties v. Miller, 263 Ga. 484, 486 (2), 436 S.E.2d 196 (1993). [3โ€“5] Generally, property is "contiguous, adjacent to, and touching" the entryway of an ownerโ€™s premises if it is "within the last few steps taken by invitees, as opposed to mere pedestrians, as they enter or exit the premises."

  3. Martin v. Six Flags Over Georgia II, L.P.

    301 Ga. 323 (Ga. 2017)

    In short, Six Flags did not demonstrate the โ€œpositive exercise of dominion over a public way or anotherโ€™s property [that] is necessary in order to avoid โ€˜imposing upon invitors an unknowable and impossible burden for maintaining an undefined circumference of properties.โ€™ โ€ Motel Properties v. Miller, 263 Ga. 484 , 486 (3) (436 SE2d 196 ) (1993) (citation and punctuation omitted). We have defined the term โ€œapproachesโ€ as follows:

  4. Padgett v. Kmart Corp.

    CV 315-48 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 15, 2016)

    [The words] "contiguous, adjacent to, and touching" . . . mean that property within the last few steps taken by invitees, as opposed to "mere pedestrians," as they enter or exit the premises.Motel Props., Inc. v. Miller, 436 S.E.2d 196, 198 (Ga. 1993) (citations and punctuation omitted). "[A]n approach to a . . . store includes the 'sidewalk immediately in front of and adjacent to the premises . . . , but it [does] not include the landlord owned and maintained parking lot adjacent to the sidewalk.'"

  5. Martin v. Six Flags Over Ga. Ii, L.P.

    801 S.E.2d 24 (Ga. 2017)   Cited 46 times
    In Martin, this Court noted that "the foreseeability of future criminal acts may be established by evidence of prior criminal acts of a โ€˜substantially similarโ€™ nature," as well as "[a]n establishment's location in a high crime area" and "evidence that the landowner had knowledge of a volatile situation brewing on the premises." 301 Ga. at 331 (II) (A), 801 S.E.2d 24.

    In short, Six Flags did not demonstrate the "positive exercise of dominion over a public way or another's property [that] is necessary in order to avoid โ€˜imposing upon invitors an unknowable and impossible burden for maintaining an undefined circumference of properties.โ€™ " Motel Properties, Inc. v. Miller , 263 Ga. 484, 486 (2), 436 S.E.2d 196 (1993) (citation omitted). We have defined the term "approaches" as follows:

  6. Boyd v. Big Lots Stores, Inc.

    347 Ga. App. 140 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 3 times

    The undisputed facts show that Boyd was not on the Big Lots store premises when she slipped and fell in the common area parking lot, and the trial court correctly concluded that the parking lot was not an approach to the store premises within the meaning of OCGA ยง 51-3-1. Under Motel Properties, Inc. v. Miller , 263 Ga. 484, 486, 436 S.E.2d 196 (1993), an approach to the premises for the purpose of OCGA ยง 51-3-1 means that property directly contiguous, adjacent to, and touching those entryways to premises under the control of an owner or occupier of land, through which the owner or occupier, by express or implied invitation, has induced or led others to come upon his premises for any lawful purpose, and through which such owner or occupier could foresee a reasonable invitee would

  7. Food Lion, Inc. v. Isaac

    261 Ga. App. 311 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that the parking lot of a grocery store was not an "approach" to the store when it was "a common area of the shopping center where the store was located and was owned and maintained by [the store's] landlord"

    Pursuant to ยง 51-3-1, Food Lion had a duty to exercise ordinary care to keep the approaches to its premises safe for invitees even if those approaches were over property not within its control. Motel Properties, Inc. v. Miller, 263 Ga. 484, 486 ( 436 S.E.2d 196) (1993); Elmore of Embry Hills v. Porcher, 124 Ga. App. 418, 419-420 ( 183 S.E.2d 923) (1971). Under Motel Properties, "approaches" in ยง 51-3-1 mean

  8. Rischack v. City of Perry

    223 Ga. App. 856 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 8 times
    In Rischack, we held that it was too speculative to find constructive notice from evidence that the "hazard was a relatively narrow and shallow depression which was covered and surrounded by short grass."

    We disagree. In Motel Properties v. Miller, 263 Ga. 484 (1) ( 436 S.E.2d 196) (1993), our Supreme Court addressed the issue of what physically constitutes an "approach." Under Motel Properties the term "approach" "`refers to the sidewalk or other approach that is directly contiguous, adjacent to, and touching the premises under control of the owner or occupier.' [Cit.

  9. Combs v. Atlanta Auto Auction

    287 Ga. App. 9 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that a plaintiff could pursue a negligence claim under OCGA ยง 51-1-6 based on the defendant's alleged violation of certain zoning ordinances

    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Motel Properties v. Miller, 263 Ga. 484, 486 (2) ( 436 SE2d 196) (1993). Thus, an approach is also known as the last few steps taken by an invitee immediately before entering the owner's premises.

  10. Harris v. Inn of Lake City

    285 Ga. App. 521 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 1 times
    Holding that wooden steps leading to a beach, which were installed and maintained by the County and which the general public had to use to access the beach, did not constitute an approach to a beach resort

    Motel Properties v. Miller. See Elmore of Embry Hills, Inc. v. Porcher ("approaches. . . refers to the sidewalk or other approach that is directly contiguous, adjacent to, and touching the premises under control of the owner or occupier") (punctuation omitted). Motel Properties v. Miller, 263 Ga. 484, 486 (2) (436 SE2d 196)(1993).Elmore of Embry Hills, Inc. v. Porcher, 124 Ga. App. 418, 420 (183 SE2d 923)(1971).