Hazard v. Medlock Tavern, Inc.

Facts

In Hazard v. Medlock Tavern, Inc., the Plaintiff appealed a trial court decision granting the Defendant summary judgment in a rainy day slip and fall case, arguing there were genuine issues of material fact. The state court of Gwinnett County initially denied the motion but granted it after the Defendant’s motion for reconsideration. The Appellate Court found two triable issues and reversed the trial court’s decision.

The Plaintiff, Julie Hazard, was a regular at the Medlock Tavern. She visited the tavern two times a week, including days when it was raining outside.

December 14, 2018 was a typical tavern visit. Hazard arrived around 5:15 PM. Rain started shortly before her arrival. She testified that there was no standing water on the floor then.

It was a busy night, and Hazard could not find a table immediately. So, she visited with other bar patrons at their tables. One of them was a friend who arrived about an hour after Hazard. The friend testified that the rain graduated to a torrential downpour at that time.

The friend also noted that she slipped in the entryway, which was slowly accumulating water but did not fall. Another patron described this area as a “soaking mess.” That patron could not recall seeing any wet floor signs. She also informed the bartender of the peril, but he was unfazed. He merely stated that he and the other employees were too busy to deal with it.

After spending around two and a half hours at the bar, Hazard decided it was time to leave. She did not see a ‘wet floor’ sign or standing water. Hazard started to exit the bar, only to turn and respond to another friend who greeted her. When she turned, she stepped off the rug and on the floor. Her foot hit a puddle of water, and she slipped and fell.

Hazard discovered the water on the floor when friends arrived to help her. She found her foot and pants were wet, and the puddle was about the size of a utility hole cover. She also felt significant pain in her right arm. The next day, she visited the emergency room and learned she had fractured her humerus. Her treatment took several months and included physical therapy.

Hazard filed suit against the tavern, alleging it and its employees’ negligence caused her injuries. The tavern denied responsibility and filed for summary judgment. The trial court first denied the motion but later granted the tavern summary judgment on a motion for reconsideration.

Issues and Holdings

The issues in this case were:

1. Whether there were genuine issues of material fact that the tavern had actual, superior knowledge of an unreasonable accumulation of water?
2. Whether the Plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care for her own safety as a matter of law?

The court ruled:

1. Yes, there was evidence from which a jury could conclude that the tavern had actual knowledge of an unreasonable accumulation of water.
2. No, it was for a jury to decide whether the Plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care for her own safety.

Reasoning

Business owners are only liable for unreasonable risks when it comes to natural conditions, like indoor water accumulation due to rain. Because it is “common knowledge” that when it is raining outside some amount of water will be present where a person enters a building, a Defendant owner or occupier is only liable to customers who slip and fall on floors made wet by rain if there is both (1) an unusual accumulation of water, and (2) the Defendant has failed to follow reasonable inspection and cleaning procedures. Hazard v. Medlock Tavern, Inc., 365 Ga. App. 71, 72 (2022).

In Hazard, the water accumulation issue is related to whether the Defendant had actual or constructive notice. That element is required in the Plaintiff’s slip and fall claim. She must also show she lacked knowledge of the hazard while exercising ordinary care for her own safety. Id. at 73-74.

Using these standards, the Court of Appeals found two genuine issues of material fact regarding:

• The tavern’s actual or constructive knowledge of the danger in the entryway
• Whether Hazard exercised ordinary care for her safety when she used the entryway

Actual or Constructive Knowledge

The Court of Appeals focused on the following facts in concluding that a jury could find that the Defendant had actual or constructive notice of the unreasonable accumulation of water:

• Evidence that 30 to 50 minutes before Hazard fell, another patron slipped on what she called a “soaking mess” and informed the bartender that “someone was going to get hurt” unless they addressed it.
• Hazard stated her pants and foot were wet after the fall.
• Hazard did not see the puddle until after she fell on the floor. Id. at 74.

The court concluded that this was enough to show that the tavern had notice and superior knowledge of the danger.

Plaintiff’s Alleged Failure to Exercise Ordinary Care

After addressing the Defendant tavern’s notice of the dangerous condition, the court turn its attention to the Plaintiff’s alleged failure to exercise ordinary care. The Court of Appeals noted that routine issues in a negligence case, such as the Plaintiff’s lack of ordinary care, are not subject to summary judgment, except in plain and undisputed cases. The Court of Appeals further stated that what constitutes a reasonable lookout depends on all the circumstances, and a customer is not always required to look continuously at the floor for defects.

The Court of Appeals relied on the following facts in concluding that this was not a plain and undisputed case susceptible to summary adjudication:

• Plaintiff did not see any water accumulation when she arrived at the tavern.
• Plaintiff slipped after she stepped off the mat and onto the floor as she was turning in response to a friend calling her name.

Conclusion

Hazard is an important case because it involved a rainy day slip and fall claim. These cases are frequently disposed of on summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Many lawyers decline to take these cases because of the challenges in proving liability. But this case shows that every case stands on its own facts. It is important to explore the unique facts of your case when screening a potential client, and then tailor your written discovery and depositions to obtain the facts to survive 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: Hazard v. Medlock Tavern, Inc., A22A0730 (Ga. Ct. App. Aug. 19, 2022)