Court Opinion

ID: 9564721
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:05:52.580511+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:38.067872
License: Public Domain

McMurray, Presiding Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with Divisions 1 and 2 of the majority opinion which reverse the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s nuisance and negligence claims. However, I am unable to join the majority in approving of the grant of summary judgment to defendant on plaintiff’s premises liability and mantrap claims. Therefore, I respectfully dissent to Division 3 of the majority opinion.
In my view, the superior court also erred in granting summary judgment as to plaintiff’s premises liability claim. While defendant did not own the railroad right-of-way, a jury could reasonably conclude that defendant occupied those premises each Independence Day by conducting the parade in such a manner as to encourage the use of that premises by the attending crowd. As occupier of the premises, defendant owed to the spectators, who were present at its invitation and thus invitees, ordinary care in keeping the premises safe. Macon Tel. Publishing Co. v. Graden, 79 Ga. App. 230, 233 (1) (53 SE2d 371). Under this theory, defendant’s liability would be predicated on its superior knowledge of the hazards posed by the railroad tracks. While defendant argues that plaintiff and his children had equal knowledge of the hazards, and also relies upon the defense of assumption of risk, the evidence on these issues is at least conflicting. Rebecca testified that she did not expect trains to be passing *73during the parade, while defendant was aware that they had done so in the past and that it had not taken any precaution to lessen that danger through crowd control or by requesting that the trains pass at a reduced speed during the time the crowd would be present.
Decided April 3, 1998
Parker & Lundy, William L. Lundy, Jr., Johnny R. Pannell, for appellants.
Hawkins & Parnell, Charles R. Beans, Michael J. Goldman, for appellee.
I would also hold that the superior court erred in granting summary judgment as to plaintiff’s mantrap claim. The occupier of premises, as well as an owner, owes a duty to even a mere licensee or trespasser not to maintain a mantrap on the premises. McKinsey v. Wade, 136 Ga. App. 109 (220 SE2d 30); Clark v. Rich’s, Inc., 114 Ga. App. 242 (150 SE2d 716). The doctrine of mantrap or pitfall is based on the theory that the owner or occupier is expecting a trespasser or licensee and has prepared the premises to do him harm. However, a mantrap may result from the knowledge on the part of the owner or occupier of the existence of a dangerous condition coupled with a conscious indifference to the consequences, so that an intent to inflict injury is inferable. McKinsey v. Wade, 136 Ga. App. 109, 111 (5), supra; Brooks v. Logan, 134 Ga. App. 226 (213 SE2d 916); Kahn v. Graper, 114 Ga. App. 572 (152 SE2d 10). The evidence of record would authorize such a finding in this case.
I am authorized to state that Judge Ruffin and Judge Eldridge join in this opinion.