Court Opinion

ID: 9579705
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:57:44.993601+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:42.722696
License: Public Domain

Birdsong, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
The deposition of the plaintiff shows that he traversed the same stairs and landing when entering the premises. He stated he was looking for no pecans and saw no pecan hulls or pecans on the landing though it is uncontested that if pecans were present on the steps or landing they were clearly visible to even the casual observer. This statement discloses conclusively either that Mr. Burkhead was not looking for pecans, i.e., was not exercising due care or that he was exercising due care and saw no pecans. If he was using due care and observed no pecans, the fact that he was in the building only two or three minutes eliminates the reasonable possibility that the Legion Club had opportunity to become aware of the hazard. Thus, the plaintiff by his own testimony has negated the superior knowledge required of the appellee or conceded his own lack of due care. See Pound v. Augusta Nat., 158 Ga. App. 166 (279 SE2d 342). I would affirm.
I respectfully dissent. I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Deen and Judge Sognier join in this dissent.