Atlanta Injury Attorney Blog

On October 5, 2006, a young woman went to visit her sister, who lived in a Roswell, GA apartment complex owned by Huntington Farms Associates, LLC and managed by Investment Realty Holdings, LLC. When the woman got out of her car in the apartment parking lot, two males forced her into the back of her car where they sexually assaulted and raped her. The woman suffered physical and mental injuries, including post-traumatic stress disorder. She brought suit against Huntington Farms Associates and Investment Realty Holdings.

The Plaintiff asserted there was an extensive history of prior crime on the property, including sexual assaults. The Defendants failed to implement any security measures and there was not a single camera on the property. The Defendants agreed to a $2.5M settlement.

The general rule regarding premises liability is that a landlord does not have a duty to protect tenants' safety against third-party criminal attacks. However, OCGA § 51-3-1 states that landlords have a duty to "exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe." This duty extends to foreseeable criminal acts. Therefore, if the landlord has reason to anticipate a criminal act, he has a duty to exercise ordinary care to guard against injury from dangerous situations.

In this case, the Defendants knew that similar crimes had previously occurred on the property, they had time to implement security measures, and they failed to do so. Landlords cannot avoid liability by failing to take action when they know about dangerous conditions on their property.

Morrell and Doris Perkins checked out of a Comfort Inn on March 24, 2006. Morrell descended the hotel stairs from his second-floor room, turned left towards the parking lot, and walked along the hotel's porch. He then stepped off the curb, fell into some bushes, and broke his ankle. Morrell stated that he did not see the curb; however he acknowledged that he had successfully negotiated the curb on previous occasions during his stay. Morrell and Doris sued Val D'Aosta Company, the owner and operator of the Comfort Inn, for Morrell's injury. The case is styled PERKINS et al. v. THE VAL D'AOSTA COMPANY, 2010 Ga. App. LEXIS 678 (July 9, 2010).

In a Georgia premises liability suit based on a "slip and fall" or "trip and fall" claim, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard and that the plaintiff, despite exercising ordinary care for his personal safety, lacked knowledge of the specific hazard due to the defendant's action or inaction. In Georgia, a curb is classified as a "static defect." A claim involving a static defect differs from other "slip and fall" cases. When an individual has successfully negotiated the static hazard on a previous occasion, the individual is presumed to have equal knowledge of the hazard and cannot recover for an injury resulting from the dangerous condition. However, this rule only applies to a static condition that is "readily discernible" to a person exercising reasonable care. During the trial, a professional engineer testified that the curb was too high, the lighting in the area was poor, there was no warning sign or handrail, and the curb was not painted or marked.

The Court said that Morrell Perkins was an invitee on the property and therefore did not have a duty to look continuously for defects. In order to determine liability, the jury must determine whether the specific hazard was "readily discernable" to Mr. Perkins in the exercise of ordinary care, and therefore whether it can be presumed that he had knowledge of it.

The Court of Appeals held that there was enough evidence for the case to go to trial and for the Plaintiff to avoid summary judgment.

Plaintiff V.J.D. was a tenant in the ground level unit of an apartment building in Stone Mountain. DeKalb County Housing Authority owned the building and Spring Chase, Inc. managed the property. In June 2001, the plaintiff discovered a chair beneath one of her apartment windows. Her window screen had been cut out. She reported the incident to Spring Chase and asked to move apartments. Spring Chase required that she pay a transfer fee, which the plaintiff could not afford. Therefore, she was not permitted to relocate within the complex.

In September 2002, an unknown man entered the plaintiff's apartment. He raped her and beat her face. A police officer testified that the perpetrator "overcame her window and its lock." The plaintiff sued the owner and manager of the property. She alleged they failed to provide adequate security for the complex, that they were aware of at least two other attempts to enter her apartment, and that they refused to permit her to move apartments. The jury returned a $9M verdict for the plaintiff.

If a property owner has reason to anticipate a criminal act, they then have a duty to exercise ordinary care to guard against this risk of harm. The court will examine prior criminal activity on the premises to determine the foreseeability of the crime. In order to be "foreseeable," the crime must be substantially similar to previous criminal activity.

In this case, the criminal attack was foreseeable because the plaintiff had specifically warned the owner about the exact method of entry that the criminal utilized.

A trespasser is one who, intentionally or by mistake, enters upon another's property without authority or permission from the owner to do so. A landowner does not owe a duty to trespassers to keep the premises in a safe condition. Rather, the landowner owes only a minimal duty to avoid willfully or wantonly injuring the trespasser.
One exception to this rule involves anticipated trespassers. An anticipated trespasser is one who the landlord knows or has reason to anticipate would come onto the property. The landlord has a duty to protect anticipated trespassers from dangerous activities or hidden perils on the premises.

The landlord has a higher duty of care if the individual is a licensee. A licensee is permitted to be on the property for social purposes (they are usually a social guest). The landowner has a duty to use ordinary care to keep the premises safe. He must protect licensees from known hazards on the premises.

The landlord has the highest duty of care if the individual is an invitee. An invitee is a person who is invited onto the property for business reasons (customers of a business, job applicants etc...). As with licensees, landowners have a duty to repair and correct known dangers in order to keep the property safe. Additionally, a landowner must reasonably inspect for and correct unknown hazards.

Gwendolyn Carothers and her boyfriend checked into a Super 8 Motel in the Cobb County Town Center Mall. The next morning Gwendolyn's boyfriend left the room to run an errand while Gwendolyn was still sleeping. Gwendolyn awoke because someone was "improperly touching and licking her." The perpetrator was a Super 8 male employee.

Gwendolyn sued Super 8 Motel, alleging that Super 8 failed to exercise care to keep the premises safe for motel guests. Super 8 failed to perform a criminal background check on the male employee before hiring him and entrusting him with a master key. Additionally, the Super 8 manager knew that while he was employed at Super 8, the employee had been arrested several times on various charges. The jury returned a verdict for $550,000 in Gwendolyn's favor.

An employer has a duty to exercise reasonable care in hiring individuals who, because of the type of employment, may pose a threat to members of the public. An employer is liable for negligent hiring and retention if the employer knew or should have known that its employee had violent and criminal propensities. However, the employer does not need to foresee the employee's specific behavior. An employer may be liable if they failed to accurately check an employee's references, criminal records, or background information that may have shown the employee's likelihood for criminal behavior. Additionally, an employer may be liable if they failed to dismiss an employee after finding out the employee was a violent or abusive individual.

Atkins v. MRP Park Lake LP (A09A2125) - Premises/Landlord Liability

On April 8, 1998, a tornado struck the Park Lake apartments, which were owned by MRP Park Lake LP and managed by Realty Management Corporation. The storm caused severe damage to the apartment complex. After the storm, a Realty Management employee assigned two contract workers to fix a leak in Sandra Atkins's roof. The workers placed a tarp over the roof. The tarp had no holes and covered the vent pipes, creating a toxic environment as it trapped carbon monoxide. Atkins was diagnosed with carbon-monoxide poisoning and subsequently filed a personal injury suit against MRP and Realty Management. In November 2009, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the judgment in favor of the defendants.

In Georgia, an employer generally is not responsible for torts committed by independent contractors. However, if a landowner's duty is imposed by statute, it is "non-delegable" and the landowner may be held liable for the independent contract workers' negligence. Under the Georgia statute, landowners have a duty to keep their rented premises in good repair. Liability is imposed on the landlord for any damages resulting from defects in the premises. In this case, the contract workers repaired the roof in a negligent fashion, thus creating a defect in the premises. Therefore, MRP and Realty Management may be liable.

It is important to note that a landlord cannot avoid liability by simply hiring an independent contractor to perform its statutorily-imposed duties.

If you've been injured due to landlord negligence anywhere in Georgia, call the Delius Law Firm at 404-352-3400.

Rebecca and David Lore first noticed a sinkhole near their property on June 27, 2004. The sinkhole was located in the "Recreation Area" and was owned and maintained by the Suwanee Creek Homeowners Association Inc. (SCHOA). Rebecca Lore repeatedly notified SCHOA about the hazard. On October 23, 2006, Rebecca Lore walked into the Recreation Area and stood at least four feet away from the edge of the sinkhole. The ground beneath her suddenly gave way, and she fell, impaling her forearm on a branch. The Lores brought a personal injury claim against SCHOA.

SCHOA had actual knowledge of the sinkhole in this case. Therefore, SCHOA had a legal duty to conduct a reasonable inspection of the sinkhole and the surrounding area to determine whether the hole posed a danger to invitees. Furthermore, SCHOA had a duty to take reasonable steps to protect invitees from those dangers. If the court did not enforce this duty, SCHOA could simply escape liability once it was notified of the sinkhole's existence by intentionally failing to inspect the area for instability and other related dangers.

In order to recover for her injuries, Rebecca Lore must prove not only that SCHOA failed to conduct a reasonable inspection of the area and to protect invitees from the danger, but she must prove that she exercised ordinary care for her personal safety and that she had no knowledge of the specific hazard that caused the injury. Rebecca was clearly aware of the sinkhole, but there was no evidence that she knew that the surrounding area, over four feet away from the hole, was unstable.

If you have suffered an injury due to a property owner's negligence in Georgia, call the Delius Law Firm at 404-352-3400 for a free evaluation of your case.

American Multi-Cinema Inc. v. Brown (S08G1934) - Trip & Fall; Premises Liability

On Christmas Day 2003, the AMC movie theater at Southlake Mall was very busy. Just a few minutes before a packed movie theater let out, an AMC employee set up a "Wet Floor" sign over a small spill just outside the auditorium door. Nancy Sue Brown was walking in the middle of the crowd as she exited the theater. By the time she reached the sign, it had fallen over and was lying on the floor. Brown's vision was obscured by the crowd and she tripped over the sign and fell to the floor, seriously injuring her back. Brown sued AMC to recover for her injuries.

An owner or occupier of land has a legal duty to "exercise ordinary care to keep and maintain its premises in a condition that does not pose an unreasonable risk of foreseeable harm to the invited public." Simply setting up a "Wet Floor" sign to mark a spill does not necessarily satisfy this duty. If the presence of the crowd obscured the sign, rendering it ineffective as a warning device, AMC may be liable. Brown produced expert testimony that the type of sign AMC used collapses easily and proved there were safer and readily available alternatives AMC could have used to address the spill. Furthermore, AMC employees placed the sign in an area they knew would be inundated with patrons.

If the jury determines the sign did not serve its proper purpose as a warning device, it will have to determine whether AMC should have foreseen that the sign, as it was placed, might create a tripping hazard to a customer.

This is certainly an unusual case.

Tims v. Hasselberger (A09A0035) - Wrongful Death

Greg Wade Murray died after consuming alcohol and methadone pills at a party Justin Tims hosted while his parents were out of town. Frances and Michael Tims went out of town for the weekend of May 14-15, 2005. Before they left, they instructed their son, Justin, that he was not to stay at their house and he was not to have parties at the house. Justin told his parents he would stay with his friend or his employer. On May 15, 2005, Justin hosted a party which Greg Murray attended. A third party sold Greg three methadone pills and Greg died later that night from methadone toxicity. Greg's mother brought a wrongful death suit against the Timses.

In Georgia, parents are not liable for the torts of their minor children "merely because of the parent-child relationship." Parents are only liable when the negligence of the child is imputed to the parent or the parent was negligent. The Timses did not supply the methadone or the alcohol, therefore the standard for imposing liability is whether the parent knew of the child's "proclivity or propensity for the specific dangerous activity." Here, there was no evidence that the Timses knew Justin or Greg had ever consumed methadone. The Timses had no reason to anticipate that their son would host a party at their home at which an individual would sell Greg methadone and that Greg would ingest the methadone. Furthermore, Georgia has declined to place a duty on parents to arrange for the supervision of their teenagers while they are out of town. The Timses are not liable for Greg's death and had no duty to guard against it.

Although the parent-child relationship is legally significant, parents cannot be held liable for their children's actions if they had no knowledge that the activity was likely to occur.

Gordon v. Fleeman (A09A0433; A09A0434)

Nathaniel Fleeman and Juhmel Barnhart rented a duplex from Lucy Dessesseau, who had leased the property from its owner, Irvine Gordon. Around 2:00 a.m. on February 2, 2005, a fire started in the kitchen of the duplex. When firefighters arrived at the scene, they found Fleeman and Barnhart still in the house. Both men died from smoke and soot inhalation and burns. The fire investigator testified that after inspecting the duplex he found neither a smoke detector nor a backing plate which is used to mount a smoke detector. Two other witnesses testified that there was only one smoke detector, located downstairs.

The Georgia Code (O.C.G.A. § 25-2-40) requires that every dwelling and every dwelling unit constructed prior to July 1, 1987 shall have installed an "approved battery operated smoke detector which shall be maintained in good working order." Furthermore, the Code requires that a smoke detector must be mounted at a "point centrally located in the corridor or area giving access to each group of rooms used for sleeping." Gordon testified that when he leased the duplex to Dessesseau, he delegated the authority to fix the house to Dessesseau and a contractor. Gordon conceded that he never personally purchased or installed any smoke detectors and never walked through the property to confirm the contractor had installed any detectors.

The court found Gordon liable to the plaintiffs in their wrongful death suit. As the owner of the property, Gordon had a statutory duty to properly install and maintain smoke detectors in the rental home. Gordon could not avoid this duty or the resulting liability by delegating authority to "fix the house" to his lessee and/or a contractor.

If you or a loved one has been injured on a property due to someone else's negligence, call the Delius Law Firm at 404-352-3400 for a free evaluation of your case.

Flores v. Exprezit! Stores 98-Ga. LLC (A10A0703)

Billy Joe Grundell lost control of his car, drove it across the median, and collided head-on with a van, killing six people and seriously injuring three. Grundell's blood alcohol level proved he was intoxicated at the time of the accident. Four hours prior to the collision, an Exprezit convenience store employee sold packaged beer to Grundell. Grundell was noticeably intoxicated at the time and the employee knew he would be driving a car soon.

The Georgia Dram Shop Act (GDSA) provides that "when a person sells alcoholic beverages to a noticeably intoxicated buyer, who the seller knows will soon be driving a motor vehicle, the seller may be liable for resulting injury or damage when the buyer drives while intoxicated from consumption of those alcoholic beverages." Liability will be imposed upon an alcohol supplier when the alcohol is supplied for legal consumption on the supplier's premises. In this case, however, the alcohol sold by Exprezit was not intended to be consumed on the store premises. In fact, it was illegal for Grundell to consume the alcohol on the store's premises or in his vehicle.

The court held Exprezit was not liable for the accident because the alcohol was not supplied for consumption on Exprezit's premises. Furthermore, the GDSA did not require that before selling the beer, the Exprezit employee investigate when and where Grundell would drink the beer. Exprezit did not have a duty to determine whether Grundell would drink the alcohol before driving.

The GDSA imposes liability on alcohol suppliers for serving intoxicated individuals who they know will be driving, but limits that liability to suppliers who sell for purposes of direct consumption on their property.

Call the Delius Law Firm for help with your Georgia Dram Shop case at 404-352-3400.

The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of the restaurant company in Carroll v. The Krystal Co. (A10A0288). On May 31, 2006, Charles Carroll slipped and fell as he exited a Krystal restaurant in Valdosta, Georgia. Both of Carroll's legs "went out from under him" and he fell, landing on his right side. Carroll testified that the floor was slick, but that he did not see anything on the floor of the restaurant that could have caused him to slip. He and his wife, Connie, asserted claims for personal injury and loss of consortium against Krystal.

In June, Carroll began experiencing debilitating pain in his lower back and his right leg. He was diagnosed with damage to his lower back discs and nerve damage in his right leg. In August, he returned to the restaurant to formally report the incident. Carroll identified himself to the cashier who had waited on him the day he fell. She responded, "You're the one that slipped on the grease. We had to put salt on it after you left so nobody else would get hurt." At her deposition however, the cashier denied making the statement.

The court acknowledged the true basis of a proprietor's liability for personal injury to an invitee is the proprietor's superior knowledge of a hazardous condition that may expose the invitee to an unreasonable risk of harm. Therefore, citing Drew v. Istar Financial, the court recognized the threshold question in a slip and fall case is "whether a hazardous condition exists." The trial court failed to consider Carroll's deposition testimony regarding the cashier's statement about the grease. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding such evidence was sufficient to create a question of fact regarding the existence of a hazardous condition on the restaurant's premises. Therefore, the grant of summary judgment was inappropriate and was reversed.

Call the Delius Law Firm at 404-352-3400 for help with your slip and fall case anywhere in the State of Georgia.

In Beach v. B.F. Saul Property Co. (A09A1770), the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of directed verdict in favor of the building owner, Saul Property, in plaintiff's suit against Saul for damages sustained when the plaintiffs were trapped in the building's malfunctioning elevator and bounced up and down uncontrollably for almost an hour and a half. Martha Beach and Sofia Deglel entered the elevator and pushed the button to go down. Instead, the elevator went up, stopped, dropped quickly, and then began shaking, "bouncing them like a basketball" and causing both women to become sick and hit their heads and backsides repeatedly. None of the emergency buttons in the elevator worked and the women were unable to dial 911 because the elevator was shaking so violently. As a result of the incident, Beach's hand required surgery and Deglel suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. Both women incurred substantial medical expenses. Beach and Deglel complained that Saul negligently maintained the premises in question, and sought damages for their physical and emotional injuries.

Beach testified that the elevator malfunctioned every week and Deglel testified that the elevators were always skipping floors. Beach and Deglel introduced Saul's records in support of their testimony which showed that the elevators were not "leveling," that they became stuck on various floors, and that people were repeatedly trapped in them. Additionally, numerous witnesses testified about their problems on the elevators. The evidence demonstrated Saul was aware of repeated incidents with the elevators. The court, citing MARTA v. Rouse, stated "[W]henever a carrier, through its agents or servants, knows or has opportunity to know of a threatened injury, or might have reasonably anticipated the happening of an injury, and fails or neglects to take the proper precautions or to use proper means to prevent or mitigate such injury, the carrier is liable." Owners or operators of an elevator, like a common carrier of passengers, must exercise extraordinary diligence. The court held whether Saul knew or had the opportunity to know or reasonably anticipate an injury and failed to take the proper precautions was a question for a jury.

Furthermore, the trial court found Saul did not have sufficient notice of the injury to require compliance with OCGA § 8-2-106, which requires an oral and written report of the accident. The Court of Appeals reversed and held Saul had proper notice because Beach and Deglel had told a security officer "exactly" what had happened and because EMTs were on the scene treating the victims.

If you have been injured in a malfunctioning elevator, call the Delius Law Firm at 404-352-3400.

In Walker v. Aderhold Properties Inc., (A09A1951) the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed a grant of summary judgment to the defendants in a victim's apartment rape case. The plaintiff, Eina Walker, returned home from work in the early morning hours of July 4, 2004. As she walked along the third floor hallway to her apartment at the Fulton Cotton Mill Lofts, one man grabbed her and another held a gun to her face. The men forced her into her apartment where she was blind-folded, sexually assaulted, raped, and robbed.

The court found Aderhold Properties' security personnel had received reports that burglaries were taking place on the premises and therefore the defendants had reasonable grounds to believe another attack would occur. The court held a jury must answer the question whether, by virtue of their knowledge of the prior burglary reports, the defendants should have reasonably anticipated the risk of harm to a tenant. Furthermore, the record indicates that other crimes, including physical attacks and attempted sexual assaults, occurred on the property. The court found these incidents should have attracted the landlord's attention to the dangerous conditions present at the premises.

Evidence of prior crimes is one of the most important aspects of a premises assault case. Contact the Delius Law Firm at 404-352-3400 for help with your case.

On April 8, 1998, a tornado struck the Park Lake apartments, which were owned by MRP Park Lake LP and managed by Realty Management Corporation. The storm caused severe damage to the apartment complex. After the storm, a Realty Management employee assigned two contract workers to fix a leak in Sandra Atkins's roof. The workers placed a tarp over the roof. The tarp had no holes and covered the vent pipes, creating a toxic environment as it trapped carbon monoxide. Atkins was diagnosed with carbon-monoxide poisoning and subsequently filed a personal injury suit against MRP and Realty Management. In November 2009, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the judgment in favor of the defendants.

In Georgia, an employer generally is not responsible for torts committed by independent contractors. However, if a landowner's duty is imposed by statute, it is "non-delegable" and the landowner may be held liable for the independent contract workers' negligence. Under the Georgia statute, landowners have a duty to keep their rented premises in good repair. Liability is imposed on the landlord for any damages resulting from defects in the premises. In this case, the contract workers repaired the roof in a negligent fashion, thus creating a defect in the premises. Therefore, MRP and Realty Management may be held liable.

It is important to note that a landlord cannot avoid liability by simply hiring an independent contractor to perform its statutorily-imposed duties. Call the Delius Law Firm at 404-352-3400 if you have a premises liability case.