Atlanta Injury Attorney Blog
Over the years a number of injured people have called in after tripping over chairs in restaurants. From a common sense perspective, these can be tough cases. One of the primary defenses is that the chair is obvious to anyone walking around and the restaurant can rightfully argue, they have to be there and you should know to walk around them. But….and the only thing that matters is what comes after the but. If the chair is of a design where it sticks out past the normal footprint of a chair, then it becomes a tripping hazard and there is a viable claim.
In the recent appellate case of Connell v. Golden Corral Corp., the Eleventh Circuit Court addressed significant legal principles surrounding summary judgment and premises liability. This decision is pivotal for both plaintiffs and defendants engaged in personal injury litigation where the client tripped on a chair.
Overview of Law in the Area
The Merits of Summary Judgment
The lazy ass lawyer for the victim here, screwed up their response and the Court therefore considered the motion to be unopposed. The appellate court reiterated that even when a motion for summary judgment is unopposed, the district court cannot grant it solely based on that lack of opposition. Instead, the court must evaluate the merits of the motion and examine all evidence presented. This ruling is particularly crucial for plaintiffs as it allows for the possibility of contesting a summary judgment even if their attorneys fail to file a timely response or comply with procedural rules.
The court noted that summary judgment is only proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact that could lead a reasonable jury to rule in favor of the nonmoving party. This reinforces the principle that the merits of a case must be fully evaluated, highlighting the need for a thorough examination of the evidence.
Premises Liability Standards
Tripping over a chair falls into the legal field know as “premises liability.” The court’s analysis of premises liability in Georgia establishes two essential components that a plaintiff must prove: (1) that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard, and (2) that the plaintiff, despite exercising ordinary care for their own safety, lacked knowledge of the hazard due to the defendant’s actions or the conditions under their control. This framework is critical for anyone considering filing a premises liability claim.
The appellate court cited the Georgia Supreme Court’s precedent, indicating that routine issues of negligence and the comparative care of the parties typically require jury evaluation rather than judicial determination. This means that questions surrounding how vigilant patrons must be for their own safety and the responsibility of customers to observe potential hazards are often best left to a jury to decide.
The Court focused on the design of the chair saying, “(t)he chairs at issue were designed with a ‘wall-saver’ feature. This meant that the back legs of the chairs curved outward about halfway down, extending the base of the legs beyond the chairback to prevent the back of the chair from striking a wall.” Connell v. Golden Corral Corp., 23-11472 (11th Cir. Jun 11, 2024) The restaurant tried to argue that it had no specific knowledge that these unique chairs were a known hazard but, ”
Metro submitted the deposition testimony of its vice president of operations, Jeffrey Cheatham, who confirmed numerous prior trip-and-fall incidents involving the same chairs at other Golden Corral locations. And on appeal, Metro does not contest whether a reasonable jury could find that it had actual or constructive knowledge that the chairs’ protruding back legs may pose a tripping hazard.”
Connell v. Golden Corral Corp., 23-11472 (11th Cir. Jun 11, 2024)
The restaurant also argued that the victim had walked right by the hazard before with no problem. The heart of this “prior traverse” defense is that the customer must already be aware of the hazard and its their fault if they trip. The Appeals Court disagreed:
“Undisputed evidence shows that, at the time he fell, Teddy was returning from the buffet carrying food, when his view of the floor was likely obstructed. That Teddy previously had walked by the chair on which he tripped and other identical chairs does not, without more, demand a finding that he had knowledge of the chairs’ protruding back legs. Walking near a hazard is different than “successfully negotiating” it, and there is no evidence showing how near or far Teddy previously walked to the chair he later tripped on. So we cannot conclude that it is undisputed that Teddy had successfully negotiated the chair’s back legs.[1] “See Jackson v. Waffle House, Inc., 537 S.E.2d 188, 191 (Ga.Ct.App. 2000)…
Connell v. Golden Corral Corp., 23-11472 (11th Cir. Jun 11, 2024)