Case Name: Linda L. HIOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-07-14
Citations: 140 F. App'x 181
Docket Number: No. 05-11426
Parties: Linda L. HIOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before BIRCH, BARKETT and COX, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 140
Pages: 181–182

Head Matter:
Linda L. HIOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 05-11426
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
July 14, 2005.
Thomas A. Nash, Jr., Inglesby Falligant Horne, et al., Savannah, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Albert J. Decusati, McLain & Merritt, P.C., Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before BIRCH, BARKETT and COX, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff Linda L. Hiott appeals the judgment of the district court, arguing that the district court erred in granting Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment. We agree with the district court that even if we assume the stacked pictures that injured Plaintiff presented a hazard, there is no evidence that the Defendant had superior knowledge of the hazard. See Metts v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 269 Ga.App. 366, 604 S.E.2d 235, 237 (2004); Foodmax v. Fleming, 219 Ga.App. 469, 465 S.E.2d 489, 490 (1995). The judgment of the district court is, therefore,
AFFIRMED.