Sipple v. Newman

7 Citing cases

  1. Moran v. Team Elite Realty, LLC

    361 Ga. App. 329 (Ga. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    "An owner's obligation to keep the premises safe includes a duty to inspect the premises to discover possible dangerous conditions of which the owner does not know and to take reasonable precautions to protect the invitee from dangers which are foreseeable from the arrangement and use of the premises." Sipple v. Newman , 313 Ga. App. 688, 690, 722 S.E.2d 348 (2012) (citation and punctuation omitted). However, "diligence may not require an inspection where the owner does not have actual knowledge of the defect and there is nothing in the character of the premises indicating a defect."

  2. Aydin v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp.

    Civil Action 1:21-cv-03269-SDG (N.D. Ga. Sep. 28, 2023)

    Even assuming the stall door and hinges were not specifically inspected, Aydin does not dispute that the bathroom itself was inspected numerous times in the hours before his accident and that no problems were noted. Ordinary care does not necessarily “require an inspection where the owner does not have actual knowledge of the defect and there is nothing in the character of the premises indicating a defect.” Sipple v. Newman, 313 Ga.App. 688, 690 (2012) (citations omitted); see also Thomas v. Deason, 289 Ga.App. 753, 756 (2008) (“[A]lthough an owner owes its invitees a duty of reasonable inspection, it does not follow that the defendant was required to conduct an inspection that disclosed every latent defect on the property.”).

  3. Flickinger v. Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc.

    Case No. 8:20-cv-2212-T-33CPT (M.D. Fla. Jan. 13, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Although a duty to inspect premises exists under Georgia law, this duty exists only if the owner has superior knowledge of the hazard over the invitee. See Sipple v. Newman, 722 S.E.2d 348, 350 (Ct. App. Ga. 2012) ("An owner's obligation to keep the premises safe includes a duty to inspect the premises to discover possible dangerous conditions of which the owner does not know and to take reasonable precautions to protect the invitee from dangers which are foreseeable from the arrangement and use of the premises. Still, the owner's duty to exercise ordinary care is not a duty to absolutely prevent injury as an owner is not an ensurer of the safety of its invitees.

  4. Vills. of Cascade Homeowners Ass'n v. Edwards

    363 Ga. App. 307 (Ga. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    This means that "[a]lthough a landowner has a duty to invitees to exercise ordinary care to keep its premises safe, the landowner is not an insurer of an invitee's safety." See OCGA § 51-3-1 ; Sipple v. Newman , 313 Ga. App. 688, 689-690, 722 S.E.2d 348 (2012) ("Under Georgia law, an owner of land is liable to the owner's invitees ‘for injuries caused by [the owner's] failure to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe.’ ") (citing OCGA § 51-3-1 ).

  5. Camelot Club Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Afari-Opoku

    340 Ga. App. 618 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that a question of fact existed as to whether property owners were responsible for decedent’s murder by men who followed him home because evidence established that numerous prior robberies occurred in the parking lot

    Agnes Scott College v. Clark , 273 Ga.App. 619, 621 (1), 616 S.E.2d 468 (2005). See also Sipple v. Newman , 313 Ga.App. 688, 690, 722 S.E.2d 348 (2012). In order to recover on a premises liability claim, a 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 control of the owner/occupier."

  6. 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, in determining whether prior criminal acts are substantially similar to the occurrence causing harm, thereby establishing the foreseeability of risk,Agnes Scott College v. Clark, 273 Ga.App. 619, 621(1), 616 S.E.2d 468 (2005) ; accord Sipple v. Newman, 313 Ga.App. 688, 690, 722 S.E.2d 348 (2012).Agnes Scott College, 273 Ga.App. at 621(1), 616 S.E.2d 468 (emphasis supplied); accord Walker v. Aderhold Props., Inc., 303 Ga.App. 710, 712(1), 694 S.E.2d 119 (2010).

  7. Aubain-Gray v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

    323 Ga. App. 672 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that a store owner was entitled to summary judgment on a customer's premises-liability claim when the customer picked up a candle holder and the glass globe that was resting on top of it fell, shattered, and cut her right wrist because, inter alia , "[the customer] knew that she was handling a glass object and that people can be cut by glass, and [the store owner] did not possess superior knowledge of that danger"

    An owner is liable to an invitee for injuries caused by its “failure to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe.” (Punctuation omitted.) Sipple v. Newman, 313 Ga.App. 688, 689–690, 722 S.E.2d 348 (2012) (quoting OCGA § 51–3–1). As we have said,