Court Opinion

ID: 9855061
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:18:57.40977+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:39.627233
License: Public Domain

McMurray, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the judgment of affirmance as it is my view that the evidence as recited by the majority, when construed most favorably to the non-movant, authorizes a finding of constructive knowledge of the hazardous puddle of water in the reception area of defendant hospital authority’s emergency room without establishing that plaintiff’s knowledge was equal or greater.
The physical existence of the small puddle is undisputed. Plaintiff was seated 12 feet from the reception window for a period of 29 or 30 minutes and observed no event precipitating the hazardous spill, authorizing the inference that the spill was there all the while. Defendant has no designated person responsible for checking the floors on an interval basis to look for foreign substances. The fact that not one employee among defendant’s entire staff, who purportedly patrol the floors on a continuous basis, discovered the spill during the 29 or 30 minutes plaintiff sat in the emergency room authorizes several favorable inferences: those who “patrolled” did not look; those who looked did so perfunctorily and did not see the spill; or else, those that looked saw the spill and did nothing to cause its removal. “ Tt is the jury’s function to draw an inference from the evidence when more than one inference can be drawn.’ Thompson v. Crownover, 259 Ga. 126, 130 (6) (381 SE2d 283).”Hopkins v. Hudgins & Co., 218 Ga. App. 508, 510 (2) (462 SE2d 393). I respectfully dissent.