THI RD DI VI SI ON DOYLE, P. J. , HODGES and W

A TKI NS, JJ.

N O T IC E : M o tions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be phy s ic a lly r

e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w . ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

June 27, 2024



# In t he C ourt o f A ppe a ls o f G e o r g ia

A 24A 0 343. SN EED v . PLA CE A T M I D W A Y, LLC et al.
D O Y L E , Presid ing J ud ge. M elo d a Sneed f

iled a p erso nal inj u ry su it against Plac e at M id way, LLC (“ Mid w a y” ), and Pinnac le Pro p erty M anagement Serv ic es, LLC (“ Pinnac le” ), and

o thers. 1 The trial c o u rt d ismissed Sneed ’ s c laims against the D ef end ants based o n a
t i me- limitatio n p ro v isio n in the lease agreement betw een Mid w ay and Sneed , 2 a n d Sneed a p p eals, argu ing that the trial c o u rt’ s ord e r s h o u ld be rev ersed u nd er the

1 Sneed a lleged c l a i m s against o ther entities that she c laimed w ere the p red e c e s so rs in i n t er est to M id w ay and to the p ro p erty manager f o r that p rec ed ing o w ner. T ho se c laims, ho w ev er, are no t at issu e in this ap p eal

. I n t h i s o p inio n, “ Def end ants” ref

ers c o llec tiv e ly to M id w ay and Pinnac le.

2 There are mu ltip le leases at issu e, bu t there is no c o ntentio n that the leases are su bstantiv ely d if

f erent in regard to the ap p lic able lease p ro v isio n, so fo r p u rp o ses o f c larity, w e hav e streamlined the d isc u ssio n to a single lease betw een the p a rties.Geo rgia Su p r eme Co u r t’ s ho ld ing in La n gley v . MP S

pri ng La ke

. 3 Fo r the r easo ns that
f o llo w , w e af

f irm in p art and rev erse in p art. A c o mp laint f

ails to state a claim u p o n w hic h relief c an be granted and w arrants d ismissal o r j u d gment on the plead ings o nly if its allegatio ns d isc lo se w ith c ertainty that no set o f f ac ts c o nsistent w ith the allegatio ns co u ld be p ro v ed that w o u ld entitle the p laintif f to the r elief he seek s. Pu t ano ther w ay, if , w ithin the f

r a m e w o r k o f the c o mp laint,
ev id enc e may b e intro d u c ed whic h w i l l s u stain a grant o f relief to the p laintif f , t he c o m p laint is su f

f ic ient. L ik e t he c o u rt b e l o w , w hen w e assess t he su f

fic ienc y o f the c o m p l aint o n ap p eal, w e mu st ac c ep t the allegatio ns of f

ac t that ap p ear in the c o m p laint and v iew tho se allegatio ns in the light mo st f

av o rable to the p laintif

f. 4

On Sep tember 1 2, 2022, Sneed su ed t he D ef end ants. I n her c o mp laint, Sneed alleged that she w as a t e nant a t a p r o p erty o wned by M id w ay and managed by
Pinnac le. Sneed c ontend ed that o n Oc to ber 1 , 2020, she s u stained serio u s inj u ries o n

an o utd o o r g r a v el w alk w ay lead ing t o her unit, w hic h w alk w ay was maintained imp ro p erly by t h e D ef

e nd ants. There is no allegatio n in the co mp laint that the

w alk way w as limited o nly to Sneed ’ s u se. A fter the inc id ent, t he D ef e nd a nts mo v ed

3 307 Ga. 321 (834 SE2d 800) (201 9 ).

4 (Citatio ns and p u nc tu atio n o mitted .) Bu s h v . Ba n k o f N ew Yo rk Mello n , 31 3 Ga. A p p . 84, 89 (7 20 SE2d 37 0) (201 1 ).
2Sneed t o a new ap artment. This ap artm e n t c o n tained a ceiling f an, and Sneed

c o ntend e d t h at she w as inj u red o n J anu ary 29 , 2021 , w hen the d ef ec tiv e ly installed and rep aired c eiling f

an detac hed f

r o m the ceiling o f her ap artment and hit her in the head , k no c king her u nc o nsc io u s. Sneed alleged that she had mad e a rep air requ est to the D ef end ants p r io r to the inc id ent, that a r ep air had been sc hed u led to o c c u r p rio r
to her inj u r y , a nd that it w as r ep aired negligently o r no t at a ll p rio r to her inj u ry. Sneed ’ s Sep tember 1 2, 2022 co m p l a i n t a lleged v ario u s instanc es o f negligenc e against the D ef end ants r elated to these tw o inc id ents, inc lu d ing f ailu re to exerc ise r easo nable

c are in maintaining the p ro p erty, f ailu re to k e ep t h e p remises and ap p ro ac hes s af e, f ailu re to w arn, a nd o ther negligenc e that d isc o v ery m ay rev eal. I t is u nd isp uted that Sneed f iled the c omp laint w ithin t w o y e ars o f eac h inc id ent u nd er the statu te o f limitatio n f

o r to rt c laims. 5
M id w ay and Pinnac le answ ered and mo v ed to d ismiss the c o mp laint, argu ing that Sneed ’ s c l a i m s w e re time barred bec au se the lease co ntained a o ne- year timelimitatio n p r o v isio n f

o r c laims against t he management c o mp any o r o w ner. The
p ro v isio n at issu e stated :

5 See OCGA § 9 -3- 33 (p ro v id ing that “ ac tio ns fo r i n j u r i e s t o the p erso n shall be bro u ght w ithin tw o years af ter the right o f

ac tio n ac c ru es” )

. 3Limi t atio ns on A c tio ns. To the extent a llo w e d by law , R e s id e nt also

agrees and u nd erstand s that any legal a c tio n agai n s t M a nagement o r Ow ner mu st b e institu t ed w ithin o ne year o f the d ate any c laim or c au se o f ac tio n ari se s a n d t h a t any ac tio n f iled af t er o ne year fro m su c h d ate shall be time barred as a matter o f law

.
Sneed resp ond ed to the mo tio n, argu ing that the p r o v i s io n w as id entic al to a
p ro v isio n c o nsid ered by t he Geo rgia Su p reme Co u rt in La n gley , 6 in w hic h the Co urt ad d ressed w hether the c o ntrac t barred the plaintif f ’ s p erso nal inj u ry c laims af ter she
f ell o n the p ro p erty gro u nd s. 7 The Co u rt exp lained that the langu a ge w as ambigu o u s, meaning either that it ap p lied to any ac tio n the p laintif f c o nc eiv ably c o uld file against the d e f e nd ants or that it ap p lied o nly t o claims that aro se f ro m the c o ntrac tu al relatio nship itself

, and bec au se o f the ambigu ity, it c o nstru ed the langu a ge in f av or o f the no n- d raf

ting p laintif

f

. 8 The Co u r t c o nc lu d ed that the langu age w a s l imited to

c laims arising f

ro m the co ntrac t, and theref o re, it d id no t ap p ly to the p laintif f ’ s c laims

6 307 Ga. at 321

- 322.

7 See id

.
8 See id

. at 322.
4arising f

ro m p r emises liability to rt law

. 9 I n e x p l a ining its ho ld ing f u rther, t he Co urt stated that [t]he law establishes a c o ntrac t c laim arising f ro m a breac h of [the d ef end ant’ s] d u ties u nd e r the lease and OCGA § 44- 7

- 1 3, sep arate a nd ap art f ro m a p remises liability to rt c laim arising f ro m [the d ef

end ant’ s] d u ties a s a p ro p erty o w ner to k eep the p remises s af e u nd er OCGA § 51

- 3- 1
. To rt and c o ntrac t s imp ly pro v id e alternate v e hic les (and remed ies) thro u gh w hic h [the d ef

e nd ant] c o u ld be liable to [the p laintif f ] f o r f ailing to k eep the p ro p e rty in rep air. 1 0

D esp ite the ho ld ing in L a n gley , in the p r esent c ase, the trial c o u rt granted the

mo tio ns to d ismiss, f

ind ing that the time- limitatio n p ro v isio n in Sneed ’ s lease agreement barred her c laims. Sneed ap p ealed this d ec isio n, bu t t his Co u rt d ismissed the a p p eal, exp laining that the trial c o u rt’ s o r d er w as no t f inal. B ac k in the trial c o u rt,

9 Se e id

. at 327 (ho ld ing that “ the general langu age ‘ any legal ac tio n,’ in the absenc e o f langu age sp ec if ic ally enc o mp assing to rt c laims, is limited to c laims arising o u t o f the lease agreement” ).

1 0 I d

. a t 329

. The Co urt als o n o t e d t h at the Geo rgia “ General A ssembly has c o nsistently exp r e s s e d t h e p u blic p o lic y o f t his [S]tate as one in fav o r o f imp o sing u p o n the land lo rd liability f or d am a g e s t o o thers f

ro m d ef e c tiv e c o nstru c tio n and f ailu re to k eep his p remises in rep air. The exp r e ssed pu blic p o lic y in f av o r o f land lo rd liability is matc hed b y an equ ally stro ng and imp o rtant pu b lic p o lic y in f a v o r o f p rev enting u nsaf

e resid ential ho u sing. ” I d

. at 329 , n . 4 , qu o ting Tho mps o n v . C ro wn o v er , 259 Ga. 1 26 , 1 28 (381 SE2d 283) (1 9 89 ).
5Sneed f

iled a mo tio n to v ac a te the trial c o u r t’ s o rd er granting t he mo tio n to d ismiss. The trial c o u rt d enied the mo tio n, bu t it ente r e d a n o r d er stating that its d ec isio n d ismissing the c laims a gainst the D ef e nd ants w as f

inal, and t here is no j ust reaso n to d elay the ap p eal. Sneed no w timely ap p eals f ro m that o rd er. B a sed o n the ho ld ing o f La n gley , Sneed a r g u e s th a t t he trial co u rt erred by d ismissing her c laims against the D ef end ants based o n the time- limitatio n p ro v isio n in the lease. I n resp o nse, the D e f end ants c o ntend t hat Sneed ’ s c laims w e re p ro p erly d ismissed bec au s e they o c c u rred no t in the c o m mo n areas o f the p ro p erty lik e the inj uries in La n

gley , bu t t hey o c c u rred in h er p r i v a te resid enc e o r c u rtilage thereto ; theref o r e, her claims aro se so lely f r o m the land lo rd

- tenant c o ntrac tu al r elatio nship and no t f ro m statu t ory o r to rt law

. 1 1 Thu s , ac c ord ing t o the D ef end ants, the trial c o urt

c o rrec t ly d ismissed the c laims by ap p lying the c o ntrac tu al t ime- limitatio n p ro v isio n
to Sneed ’ s c laims.

1 1 The D ef

end ants c ite a t length BGP In specti o n , LLC v . Oms tea d , 36 7 G a. A p p . 1 28, 1 34- 1 35 (1 ) (883 SE2d 59 3) (2023), af firmed by Oms tea d v . BGP In s pecti o n , LLC , Case N o . S23G07 71 (d e c id ed J u n. 1 1 , 2024), and its langu age d istingu ishing La n gley

. I n that c ase, ho w ev e r, the c o ntrac t at issu e e xp lic itly inc lu ded to rt c laims (as w ell as o thers) in its time- limitatio n p r o v isio n. See id

. at 1 29

- 1 30.
61
. A s an initial m a t t e r , th e D ef end ants d o no t argu e , and u p o n rev iew o f the lease w e d o no t f

ind , t hat there is ad d itio nal langu age in this lease that w o u ld remo v e it f ro m the interp retatio n mad e by the L a n gley Co u rt. 1 2 T he o nly issu e here is w hether Sneed ’ s c laims are to rt claims ind ep end e nt f ro m the c o ntrac t c laims lik e tho se ad d ressed in La n

gley , o r w hether they a re dif ferent and c reated w ho lly by t he c o ntrac t bec au se t hey o c c u rred in the p r iv ate insid e liv ing area o r in the c u rtilage ad j ac ent to the exterio r entry to her p riv a te liv ing area.
2. OCGA § 51

- 1 -1 d ef

ines “ [a] to rt [as] the u nlaw f u l vio latio n o f a p riv ate legal right o ther than a mere breac h o f c o ntrac t , exp ress o r imp lied

. A to rt may also be the

v io latio n o f a p ublic d u ty if , as a resu lt o f the v io latio n, so me sp ec ial d amage ac c ru es
to the ind iv id u al. ” I n La n gley , ev en tho u gh a rental c o ntr a c t e xisted betw een the
p arties w hic h go v erned so me p ortio ns o f their relatio nship , d u ties, and c laims, there
simu ltaneo u s ly existed the relatio nship o f a n ow ner o r o c c u p ier to an inv itee, w hic h

w as the s o u rc e o f the to rt liability id entif ied in that o p inio n. 1 3 I n o ther w o rd s, bec au se

1 2 See generally Ou tfro n t Medi a v . Ci t y o f S an dy S pri n gs , 356 Ga. A p p . 405, 41 8 (2) (847 SE2d 59 7 ) (2020), f o r a d isc u ssio n o f the ap p ro p riate ru les f o r co nstru c tio n o f the langu age o f

a lease.

1 3 See 307 Ga. at 321

. 7there was a d u t y that existed f

o r the d ef end ants o ther than a d u ty c reated by co ntrac t, the c laims a rising f

ro m the no n- c ontrac t ual d u ties w ere no t p rec lu d e d b y that timelimitatio n p ro v isio n in the c o ntrac t. 1 4
H ere, w e hav e tw o inj u ries. The f irst inj u ry o c c urred w hile Sneed f ell u sing a

w alk way that led to her p erso nal rental u nit. 1 5 The sec o nd inj ury o c c u rred insid e Sneed ’ s sec o nd ap artment w hen her c eiling f an f e ll o n her head

. Altho u gh they may

o r m ay no t hav e oc c u rred in the c o mmo n a rea, it d o e s no t f o llo w that the land lo rd d id

no t o w e a d u ty o f c a re u nd er OCGA § 51

- 3- 1 t o Sneed in tho se s p a c es. A s the
Su p reme Co u r t o bserv ed in La n gley , the to rt c laims alleged are “ p remises liability

c laim[s] p red ic ated o n [the D ef end ants’ ] s tatu s as a p r o p erty o w ner [ o r manager] 1 6

1 4 See id

. at 329

.
1 5 A ltho u gh t h e D ef

end a nts c o ntend that t his w alk way w as no t the c o mmo n area, there is no thing in the p lead ings that ind ic ate that it w as an area d emarc a ted o nly f o r Sneed ’ s u se o r that the D ef end ants had c ed ed p o ssessio n o f the area o nly to Sneed

. R e g a r d l e s s, o u r analysis d o es no t c hange based o n w hether the w alk way was f ree t o be u s ed by anyo ne.

1 6 “ I n Geo rgia, an agent w ho u nd ertak e s c omp lete c ontro l and resp o nsibility f o r management o f a p ro p e rty o w es the same d u ty as the o w ner w o u ld o w e to third p arties f o r inj u rie s r e s u l t i n g f

ro m the a gent’ s negligenc e. ” To ta l Equ i ty Mgmt. C o rp. v . D emps , 1 9 1 Ga. Ap p . 21 , 22 (1 ) (381 SE2d 51 ) ( 1 989 ). See a lso C ha m v . EC

I Mgmt. C o rp. , 31 1 Ga. 1 7 0 , 1 7 3 (2) (a) (856 SE2d 26 7) (2021 ) (d isc u ssing the c atego ries in relatio n to a v i s i to r o f the tenant to p r o p erty).
8and [Sneed ]’ s statu s as an inv itee o n that p ro p erty. ” 1 7 This Co u rt p rev i o u s l y

exp lained o n rehearing in To ta l E qu i ty Ma n a

gemen t C o rps v . D emps 1 8 that “ [l]and lo rd s
may be liable in to rt [to tenants] f o r d ef ec t iv e co nstru c tio n o r failu re t o rep air, w hic h
i n c l u d e s f

ailu re to exerc ise reaso nable c are to c o rrec t a c o nd itio n that exists i n

v io latio n o f the d u ties c reated by the ho u sing c o d es and o ther legislatio n. ” 1 9 That c ase i n v o l v ed c laims by tenants against their land lo rd f o r p erso nal inj uries arising w h e n they entered an ap artment o ther than their o w n. 2 0 This Co u rt exp l a i n ed t h a t the
ap p ellees, w ho w ere liv ing in o n e ap artment and entered an u no c c u p ied a p artment

w itho u t au t ho riz atio n f

ro m the o w ner “ w ere inv itees in their o w n ap artment and in the bu i l d i n g ’s c o mmo n areas, [bu t] o nc e they c ro ssed the thresho ld o f [the

1 7 La n gley , 307 Ga. at 326 , c iting D e mps , 19 1 Ga. A p p . at 22 (1 )

. See also OCGA § 5 1- 3- 1 ( “ [I f

] the an o wner o r o c c u p ier o f land , by e xp ress o r imp lied inv itatio n, ind u c es o r lead s o t hers to co me u p o n his p remises f o r any law f

u l p u rp o se, he is liable in damages to su c h p erso ns fo r inj u ries c au sed by his f ailu re to exerc ise o rd inary c are in k eep ing the p remises and ap p ro ac hes saf e. ” ).

1 8 1 9 1 Ga. A p p. at 21

.
1 9 (Citatio n, emp hasis, and p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) I d. at 25. See a l s o La n gley , 307 Ga. at 326

.

2 0 See D emps , 1 9 1 Ga. A p p . at 22- 23.
9u no c c u pied ap a rtment,] they bec ame lic ensees. ” 2 1 L ik ew ise, Sneed w as an inv itee in

her o w n ap artment and t he c urtilage ad j ac ent thereto

. T heref o re, the ho ld ing o f
La n gley ap p lies, and the time- limitatio n p ro v isio n in t he c o ntrac t d id no t p ro hibit all

o f Sneed ’ s c laims. 2 2
B a sed o n the f

orego ing, t he trial c o urt erred b y granting the mo tio n to d ismiss

to the extent that Sneed ’s c o mp laint can be read to hav e stated any a lleged p remises liability to rt c laims f

o r her inj u ries that oc c u rred as a resu lt o f t he inc id ent o n the

w alk way and the inc id ent w ith her ap artment ceiling f a n. To t h e e x t e n t t hat any o f Sneed ’ s claims allege s imu ltaneo u s v io latio ns o f the D ef end an ts’ d u ties u nd er the

c o ntrac t, tho se c laims w ere p ro p erly d ismissed as time b arred

. A c c o r d ingly, the trial

c o u rt’ s o rd er is af

f irmed in p a rt and rev ersed in p art. Ju dgmen t affi

rmed i n pa rt a n d rev ers ed i

n pa rt. Ho dges a n d Wa tki

n s , JJ. , co n cu r .

2 1 I d

. at 22 (1 ).

2 2 See La n

gley , 307 Ga. at 329

. 10