Court Opinion

ID: 9623237
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:30:13.293016+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:27.245226
License: Public Domain

Smith, Judge,
dissenting.
While I concur fully in Judge Andrews’ dissent, I write separately to point out that the majority in this case is attempting to create a new rule of law on the issue of actual and constructive knowledge, a rule which is contrary to the Georgia Supreme Court’s holding in Alterman Foods v. Ligon, 246 Ga. 620, 623 (272 SE2d 327) (1980). That decision clearly requires that a business invitee must avoid the effect of a proprietor’s negligence “after it becomes apparent to him or in the exercise of ordinary care he should have learned of it.” 246 Ga. at 623.
The majority here attempts to create a new rule that actual knowledge of a proprietor is always “superior” to constructive knowledge on the part of an invitee. This reasoning conflates the two separate parts of the Alterman test, which have always been addressed separately by the Georgia courts. See, e.g., Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores, 199 Ga. App. 808, 810 (406 SE2d 234) (1991). Moreover, this approach erases the requirement that the invitee use ordinary care to discover hazards in his path. I can find no basis in the existing decisional law for such a major alteration in the Alterman rule.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Birdsong, Judge *660Andrews and Judge Johnson join in this dissent.
Decided December 5, 1995
Reconsideration denied December 20, 1995
Chambers, Mabry, McClelland & Brooks, Lawrence J. Hogan, C. Gregory Ragsdale, for appellant.
Adams, Clifton & Sanders, Russell W. Smith, for appellee.