F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Au gust 5, 2005 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 04- 1234 1

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Docket N o. 02-02725 -CV -G ET -1 JOHN L. PIECHOTA, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us MARR IOTT INTERNATIONA L, INC., d. b. a. A tlanta

Marr iott M ar qui s, OTIS ELEVAT OR COMP ANY, HMARE AL TYLI MIT ED PA RT NE RSH IP, d. b. a. A tlanta

Marr iott M ar qui s, D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the N orthern District of Ge orgia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (Augus t 5, 200 5) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, T JO FL A T a nd KRA V IT CH , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:At his de po sit ion , Pie c ho ta te sti fi e d th at an O tis e mpl oye e re pa ir e d the e sc a lator . On a pp e a l, 1 he sug g ests that the re pairman w as a Ma rriott employ ee. 2 Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant P ie ch ota

appe al s th e gr an t of

sum m ar y j udgm en t t o D ef en dants -Appe lle es Marr iott I nte rn at ion al , I nc . ( “ Marr iott” ), a nd O tis E le va tor Co . ( “ O tis ”) . A ft er

r ev ie w ing the r ec or d and h av ing the be ne fi t of or al a rg um en t, w e af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt. BACKGROUND

Thi s ca se is ba se d o n a n i nc id en t at anAtl an ta ho te l o n 1 7 Oct ob er 2 00 0. W e take the f

acts m ost favorable to Piechota, the nonm ovant. Piec hota was as cen di ng an esc al at orwhen he tri pp edan d fe ll ov er s om et hi ng ne ar t he to p. Pi ec hot a cannot

r ec al l i f he hit

the gr ound . H e say s th at he f el l w he n he tr ie d to avoid an expo sed piece of ply wood, and he presum es that he fell over athreequ art ers of a n i nc h ra is edpo rti on of m et al at t he to p o f th e es cal at or(th e sk idpa d) . Pi ec hot a say s he did

not se e ra ise d po rt ionbe fo re tr ipp ing ove r it. A ft er the inc ide nt, P ie ch ota

r et ur ne d to his r oom

a nd c al le d th e ope rator

to inf orm Marr iott of his a cc ide nt. H ote l se curi ty e sc orte d P ie ch ota

ba ck to the e sc al at or

w he re he obse rv ed som eo ne r ep ai ri ng the top of the e sc al at or

by r em ovi ng the pr otr

usi on. 13

In his com

plaint, Piechota claim ed that the trip severely dam aged his kn ee, ca usi ng p hy sic al inj ur ie s and s uf fe ri ng. T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d de fe ndants ’ m oti ons fo r sum

m ar y j udgm en t on8 Apr il 2004 .

DISCUSS ION

W e re vie wthe gr an t of

sum m ar y j udgm en t de nov o and c onstru e al l inf er en ce s inf

av or of the non m ovi ng p ar

ty , P ie ch ota . W ad de ll v. H en dr y Co unty Sh er if f’ s O ff ic e, 329 F . 3d 1 300, 130 4 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) . G eo rg ialawc ontro ls, so w e m ust de ci de thi s c as e as the G eo rg iaS upr em e Co urt w oul d. C he pst owL td. v. Hun t, 3 81 F.3d 10 77 , 10 80 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). Pi ec hot a al le ge s th at

Marr iott w as ne gli ge nt i n f ai lin g to se e, w ar

n of a nd re pa ir the r ai se d e sc al at or

platf orm . H e as se rt s th at

O tis is al so n eg lig en t f

or not re pa ir ing the platf

orm and f or c au sin g th e de fe ct

by im pr ope rl y r ep la ci ng the pl at fo rm du rin g i ts m os t re cen t i ns pe ct io n, ei gh t d ay s p rio r to th e acc id en t. Whe n an e sc al at or

c au se s an in

j ur y , G eo rg ialawr equir es that the e sc al at or be pla ce d ou t of

se rv ic e unt il a state auth or ity c anins pe ct

it . O . C. G . A . § 8- 2- 106( c) . T he G eo rg iaCo urt of Appe al s c onc lud ed

that a vio la tio n of

thi s st at ute is a form of spoliatio n, w hich war rants a re buttabl e presum ption that the evidenceEvidence of a hazardous condition does not establish liability : Geor g ia does not provide for 2 strict liability

in esca lator and e levator c ases. Peter son Props. Corp. v. F inch, 508 S.E.2d 463, 464- 65 (Ga . Ct. App. 1998) (citing Ellis v. Sears Rowebuck & Co., 388 S.E.2d 920 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). 4 spoli ated would have been harm ful to the spo liator. Lane v. Montgom ery Elev at orCo ., 48 4 S .E.2d24 9, 2 51 (Ga. App . 19 97 ). E ve n th oughMarr iott de nie s any one r ep ai re d th e es ca la tor , w e m ust r es olv e dis put es in Pi ec hot a’ s f

av or . A cc or din gly , the spo liatio n c harg e ap pli es to Pi ec hot a’ s c la im

a ga ins t M ar

ri ott a nd w e pr es um e that the a lle ge dly ha zard ous conditi on (the raised platform ) existed for those purposes. N othin g evidences 2 that O tis r ep ai re d th e es ca la tor platf orm , so n o sp oli at ionc harg e w oul d a ppl y to Pi ec hot a’ s c la im s a ga ins t O tis . A s th e ope rator

of the e sc al at or , Marr iott ow ed P ie ch ota aduty of ex tr ao rd inary

c ar e in c er

ta in s itu at ion s. M A RT A v. Ro use , N o. S 04G 1389 , 200 5 W L 950014 at *1 (Ga. Apr. 26. 2005). G eorgia courts are less explicit when de fi nin g th e standard

appl ic ab le to se rv ic e ope rator s su cha s O tis . A t a m ini m um it is “he igh te ne d” or din ar y c ar e. Mi llar E le va tor

S er v. Co . v. O ’ Sh ie lds , 475 S. E . 2d 1 88, 191 ( G a. Ct . App. 199 6) . R ec en t auth or ity tr eats this “ he igh te ne d” standard as extraordinary car e. Rouse v. MA RT A, 597 S.E .2d 650, 653-54 (Ga. Ct . App. 200 4) r ev ’ d by

MA RT A v. Ro use , 200 5 W L 950 014 at *4 ( not e xpr es sly5

de ci din g w he the r se rv ic e ope rator s ow e a duty of e xtr ao rd inary

c ar e) . T his he igh te ne d st an dard

is of li ttl e uti lity

he re , be ca

use it se em s li m ite d to c as es about co nduc tin g m or e tho ro ugh inv es tig at ion s. O ’ Sh ie lds , 475 S . E . 2d at 45 8. P ie ch ota does not challenge (even w ithou t expert testim ony ) the investigatory plan: as oppo se d to it s e xe cu tio n. Pi ec hot a m

ust f ir st s howthat D ef

en dants ha d su

pe ri or kno w le dge of

the de fe ct ive c ondi tio n. P et er son Pr ops. Co rp . v. F inc h, 508 S . E . 2d 4 63, 465 ( G a. Ct . App. 1998 ). Piec hota cannot establi sh any of D efendants’ em

ploy ees had actual know le dge of

the c ondi tio n. A t hi s de posi tio n, P ie ch ota c oul d no t r ec al l se ei ng any of either D efendants’ em ploy ees in the are a of the esca lator when he w alked onto , a scended and exited the escalator. W ithou t a showing of actual knowledge, Piechota m

ust dem onstrate that Def

endants’ e m

ploy ees shouldhave “ discovered [the condition ] in the exercise of or dinary diligence.” M ay

hue v. Middle Ga . Co li se um Aut h., 5 59 S.E.2d48 8, 4 90 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 02 ). W e ag re e w iththe tr ia l c ourt tha t M ar ri ott ’ s pr ev en tativ e m ea sur es f or ec los e a co nc lus ionof

li ab ili ty on the se f

ac ts. P ie ch ota

doe s no t di sput e that M ar ri ott ins pe ct ed the are a ev er

y f ive to fi ft ee n m inu te s. G eo rg iac ourts h av e co nsi de re d a five to fiftee n m inute window rea sonable as a m atter of law. Bolton v. W al-Mar t St or es , I nc . , 570 S . E . 2d 6 43, 645 ( G a. Ct . App. 200 2) . Ar ea sona ble ins pe ct ionPiechota’s other att e mp ts to e s ta b li s h n e g li g e n c e - - thr o u g h c o n tr a c t and g ener al “do not 3 cause harm” theories of

liability -- should be r ejec ted for the same re asons discussed a bove: ordinar

y ne g lig e nc e a

pp lie s. 6 process “ m ay

be sufficient to suppo rt sum m ary adj udication as a m atter of law w he re [ as in thi s c as e] the re is no e vid en ce of e m plo y ee s inthe vic ini ty . ” D ix v . Kr oger Co., 570 S.E .2d 89, 90 (G a. Ct. App. 2002 ). In addition, Piechota offe rs no expert testim ony

challenging Marriott’ s insp ection procedures. C om pare id. at 90 (concludi ng that th e adequacy of inspection p rocedures ar e j ury question s). T h u s , G e o r g i al a ws up p o rt s th e d i s t r i c tc o u rt ’s c o n c l u s i o n th a tP i e c h o t a ’s c l a i ms can no t surv ive sum

m ar y j udgm en t. 3 Likew ise, O tis is entitl ed to summ ary j udgm ent. F irst, it cannot be said that anO tis e m

plo y ee c au se d th e de fe ct . Whil e Pi ec hot a as ks this Co urt t o “ inf er ” the co ndi tio n w as c re at ed

by an O tis e m

plo y ee w ho m ist ak en ly

r ep la ce d th e ski d pa d, we cannot. P iechota’ s own evidence suggests th at a Marriott em ploy ee r epaired the e sc al at or

a ft er his f al l. T his f

ac t su gge sts that O tis did not have e xc lus ive control of the skid pad. A ccordingly , r es ipsa loqu itur does no t apply . See Ke n T hom as of

G a. , I nc . v. H al im , 597 S . E . 2d 6 15, 618 ( G a. Ct . App. 200 4) (p er m itt ing r es ips a loquit

ur w he n, a m ong oth er

thi ngs, the ins tr

um en ta lity

c au sin g th e in jury is “ wit hi n t he ex cl us iv e co nt ro l o f th e d efen da nt ”).7

Second, P iechota’ s “ conje cture . . . is not s ufficient to raise an issu e of fa ct in l igh t of dir ec t e vid en ce ” of

ase rv ic e sc he dul e. Me dde rs v. K ro ge r Co . , 572 S. E. 2d 38 6, 388 (Ga . C t. App. 2002) (discuss ing di rect e vidence that person was scanning for hazards). He re e vidence exists of a service schedule. Otis em ploy ees vis ua lly ins pe ct ed

the e sc al at or s da ily

a nd c ondu ct ed

phy sic al ins pe ct ion s a t l ea st mo n t h l y. T h e l a s tp h ys i c a l i n s p e c t i o n o c c u rr e do n 9 Oc t o b e r 2 0 0 0 , e i g h td a ys be fo re P ie ch ota ’ s in ci de nt. B ey ond ca usa tio n, w e al so r ec ogni ze that O tis ha d no knowledge of the allegedly hazar dous conditio n and agree w ith the dis trict court th atOti s’s s erv ic e reg im en fal ls wit hi n o rd in ary care . L as t, P ie ch ota

r el ie s onsur

ve y s by ac onsu lti ng f

irm to es ta bli sh p as t know le dge of

ne gli ge nc e. Whil e the se r ep orts d o in dic at e pr ior pr obl em s w iththe es ca la tor s, by

A ugus t 19 99 those iss ue s w er e re sol ve d. A cc or din gly , the de ci sio n of the dis tr ic t c ourt i s a ff

irm ed . AFFIR MED.