Callaway Gardens Resort, Inc. v. Grant

Facts

In Callaway Gardens Resort, Inc. v. Grant, Defendants appealed a trial court order denying its Motion for Summary Judgment and granting Plaintiff’s partial Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the Defendants’ Motion and reversed the grant of the Plaintiff’s Motion.

In March 2017, Hazel Holder visited Callaway Gardens Resort with her family, including her daughters Cynthia Grant and Alisa Moring. At the time of the visit, she was 80 years old and had Parkinson’s Disease. Holder also had a stroke in the weeks before and moved using a cane. She experienced balance issues and multiple falls.

One morning, Holder was walking along a paved sidewalk with Grant. It was the first time they used the sidewalk. Grant walked to her mother’s right side.

While walking, Holder tripped and fell forward and slightly to the left. After she fell, Holder exclaimed, “[O]h, oh, I just caught my toe on that sidewalk[,] and down I went.” Callaway Gardens Resort, 365 Ga. App. at 222-23. Holder sustained head injuries in the fall.

After the fall, Grant turned back and saw a height differential in the sidewalk expansion joint. She testified it was “raised significantly.” However, since the defect was between the edge and the middle, she did not have a clear view of it until she stooped down to help her mother. Holder pointed the defect out to a security guard after she got up.

Holder reported to the hospital for her injuries and died there the next day. Holder’s surviving children and estate filed this action claiming the resort was negligent in failing to maintain the grounds in a safe condition. This lack of maintenance led to their mother’s injuries and death.

The resort answered that the sidewalk was an open and obvious static condition, and Plaintiffs failed to establish it caused the fall.

Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. Defendants sought summary judgment on causation and the defect being an open and obvious condition. Plaintiffs sought summary judgment on all issues except damages. The trial court granted the Plaintiff’s Motion and denied the Defendants’ Motion.

Issues and Holdings

The issues in this case were:

1. Was there a genuine issue of material fact on whether the sidewalk condition caused Holder’s fall?
2. Was there a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the sidewalk defect was an open and obvious condition?

Yes, there were genuine issues of material fact on both issues. As a result, neither party was entitled to summary judgment.

Reasoning

The Defendants appealed because they believed the trial court should have granted their Motion for Summary Judgment and denied the Plaintiff’s Motion. They based this claim on causation and “open and obvious” issues.

Causation

The trial court concluded Defendants’ witnesses admitted Holder did nothing to cause or contribute to her fall. It determined as a matter of law that the sidewalk defect caused Holder’s fall and death.

It based this conclusion on the deposition testimony of two witnesses: Robert Seymour (the security guard) and Wendy Nixon (the corporation’s representative.)

However, the depositions did not support that conclusion because neither witness was present during the accident. Also, the witnesses never expressed an opinion regarding Holder’s role in her fall. Seymour said he did not know if she caused or contributed to her own fall, and similarly, Nixon stated she was unaware of anything Holder may have done. Id. at 225-26. The Court of Appeals ruled this testimony was insufficient to establish causation as a matter of law in favor of the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs also claimed that the Defendants’ witnesses admitted the hazard caused Holder’s fall. They cited Nixon’s testimony as support. But again, she never admitted that. She only testified that the Defendants were unaware of whether Holder caused her fall or if another party was at fault. Id. at 226.

Plaintiff’s other arguments for causation included:

• The proximity of the defect to Holder’s fall
• The sudden and unexpected nature of the fall
• Grant’s alleged conclusion that the defect caused the fall.
• The security officer’s alleged conclusion that the cause of the fall was “she tripped on the sidewalk.”

However, all those arguments were arguments for the jury to consider and did not entitle Plaintiffs to summary judgment as a matter of law. Id. at 226.

As for the Defendants’ argument that they were entitled to summary judgment on causation, the Defendants claimed Grant walked on Holder’s right side, which placed her closer to the right side of the sidewalk, and Holder near the middle. Also, it stated the defect’s location was on the “far right side” of the sidewalk.

However, after examining these arguments, the Appellate Court concluded differently:

• The Defendants never showed that the defect was on the right side of the women’s path of travel on the sidewalk.
• Photographs showed the defect was equidistant from the right edge and the middle; it was not located to the “far right.”
• There was no evidence foreclosing the possibility of Grant walking very close to or off the edge as she walked with Holder.
• A jury could determine the defect was in the path of travel and caused the fall.
• In the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, a jury could construe Holder’s statement that she “caught” her toe on “that sidewalk” as revealing a specific hazard. at 228.

The Defendants also brought up Holder’s medical conditions as a “far more probable” cause of her fall. Id. at 228. But the Court determined that evidence was not plain, palpable, and indisputable, so it was for the jury to decide. As a result, Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on causation.

Open and Obvious

The resort had a duty to exercise ordinary care to keep its premises safe and free from hazards. However, the resort argued that it did not have superior knowledge of the hazard because it was open and obvious. Id. at 229.

An uneven sidewalk is a static condition, meaning it does not change, and it is only dangerous if someone fails to see it and trips. So, if nothing obstructs an invitee’s ability to see the condition, then the owner can assume people will see and realize the risk. Id. at 220. Using this reasoning, the Defendants argued that the defect was an open and obvious condition.

In rejecting the Defendants’ argument, the Court of Appeals held that the evidence was not plain, palpable, and undisputed as to whether the condition was open and obvious. The Court of Appeals stated that it could not conclude as a matter of law that nothing obstructed Holder’s ability to see the uneven spot on the sidewalk. In reaching this decision, the Court of Appeals focused on the following facts:

• Three witnesses, Nixon, Marc Bauer (VP of operations), and Amber Treadwell (former security officer and groundskeeper), failed to identify the defect in photos.
• None of these witnesses were present at the time of the fall.
• Finding a defect in photos was not the same as seeing it on-site, so there was no conclusive evidence on whether it was open and obvious to someone approaching it. Id. at 230-31.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment for the Plaintiffs and Defendants on this issue. None of the evidence created an undisputed issue of the open and obvious nature of the sidewalk defect.

Conclusion

This case is an example of the fact-specific nature of premises liability cases. The routine issues of negligence and causation are seldom appropriate for summary adjudication. If you represent a plaintiff in a premises liability claim, it is important to conduct thorough fact discovery in both written discovery and depositions. It is also important to do legal research before creating a discovery plan so you can know what facts may be important in overcoming a summary judgment motion.

To learn more about The Champion Firm and the personal injury practice areas we cover, visit our main website here. If you’re an attorney seeking to refer a case or partner with us as co-counsel, please reach out here.

Citation: Callaway Gardens Resort, Inc. v. Grant, A22A0856 (Ga. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2022)