Porter v. Omni Hotels, Inc.

6 Citing cases

  1. Suddarth v. Lounsbrough

    369 Ga. App. 158 (Ga. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    "To prevail in a slip and fall case, the plaintiff must show (1) that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard, and (2) that the plaintiff lacked knowledge of the hazard, despite the exercise of ordinary care, due to actions or conditions within the defendant's control." Porter v. Omni Hotels, Inc. , 260 Ga. App. 24, 24-25, 579 S.E.2d 68 (2003). "The true basis for an owner's liability is his superior knowledge of the existence of a condition that could subject his invitees to an unreasonable risk of injury."

  2. Petrosky v. Embry Crossing Condo

    284 Ga. App. 354 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 9 times
    In Petrosky, this Court held that the condominium association had constructive knowledge of the hazardous icy conditions encountered by Petrosky in the parking lot because the association lacked any inspection procedure and did not inspect the premises on the date of Petrosky's fall.

    1. On appeal from an order granting summary judgment, we review the record de novo to determine whether the trial court properly found that no genuine issues of material fact existed and that the movant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. "Summary judgment is appropriate when the court, viewing all the facts and reasonable inferences from those facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, concludes that the evidence does not create a triable issue" on at least one essential element of plaintiffs case.Porter v. Omni Hotels, 260 Ga. App. 24 ( 579 SE2d 68) (2003). (Citation omitted.)

  3. Leibel v. Sandy Springs Historic Comm

    281 Ga. App. 390 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 5 times

    There is, however, another line of cases holding that Cleveland v. Snowdrop Properties, supra at 448 (citations and punctuation omitted); see Columbus Doctors Hosp. v. Thompson, 224 Ga. App. 682 ( 482 SE2d 705) (1997); Porter v. Omni Hotels, 260 Ga. App. 24, 25 (1) ( 579 SE2d 68) (2003). the accumulation of [a] naturally occurring [substance such as ice or rainwater] does not negate an owner's duty to exercise ordinary care in inspecting the premises in every circumstance. [A substance] forming due to inevitable natural forces unaffected by human agency does not preclude examination into the question of whether or not the defendant was negligent in failing to take remedial action.

  4. Augusta Cnty. Club v. Blake

    280 Ga. App. 650 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 20 times
    Affirming denial of directed verdict against defendant related to negligence for failure to remove magnolia seed pods and leaves from the grounds, leading to plaintiff's fall

    As shown below in subsection (c), that is not the case here. Porter v. Omni Hotels, 260 Ga. App. 24, 25-26 (1) ( 579 SE2d 68) (2003).Flores v. Strickland, 259 Ga. App. 335, 337 (1) ( 577 SE2d 41) (2003).

  5. Gillis v. Foodonics International, Inc.

    615 S.E.2d 854 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 1 times

    This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo to determine whether the trial court properly found that no genuine issues of material fact existed and that the movant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.Porter v. Omni Hotels, 260 Ga. App. 24 ( 579 SE2d 68) (2003). In her deposition, Gillis testified that, prior to the date of her fall, she had been working at that location periodically for about three years; that she had been on that outside stairway at least twenty-five times; that on the day of the incident, it had rained before she and her crew exited the chicken house; that while they were descending the stairway, the steps were wet from the rain and therefore slippery; and that chicken fertilizer and other chicken byproducts carried on the bottoms of workers' shoes had made the steps even more slippery.

  6. Alcala v. Marriott Int'l, Inc.

    880 N.W.2d 699 (Iowa 2016)   Cited 226 times
    Holding a low-ranking deputy sheriff is not a public figure

    See id. at 408–09, 19 N.W.2d at 211 ; accord Cronk v. Iowa Power & Light Co., 258 Iowa 603, 612, 138 N.W.2d 843, 848 (1965) (concluding “[a]ctionable negligence may exist even though” a defendant complies with an industry standard or private safety code). I conclude Alcala adequately presented the ASTM and ANSI standards at issue in this case in the district court so that the court could determine whether they were relevant to the existence of Marriott's duty of care. Cf. Porter v. Omni Hotels, Inc., 260 Ga.App. 24, 579 S.E.2d 68, 71 (2003) (concluding a plaintiff did not show an ANSI standard applied when he neither placed the standard into evidence nor presented expert testimony regarding the standard).After reviewing the language of the standards discussed by the experts at trial and incorporated in Instruction 20, I would hold the district court did not err in finding them applicable and relevant to Marriott's duty of care.