Court Opinion

ID: 9568186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:01:15.750969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:24:25.893811
License: Public Domain

ANDREWS, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
Because I believe that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment to Atlanta South based on the fact that any distraction was of Brewer’s own making, I must respectfully dissent.
As the majority states, an invitee may recover if he can show that the owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard and that the invitee lacked knowledge of the hazard, despite the exercise *812of ordinary care, due to the actions or conditions within the control of the owner. Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735, 748-749 (493 SE2d 403) (1997).
Decided November 20, 2007
Reconsideration denied December 10,2007.
David H. Wood, for appellant.
Barrickman, Allred & Young, Fredric S. Young, Elizabeth G. Howard, for appellee.
It is not disputed that, while walking around the front of his tractor, which obscured his view of the ground, Brewer did not take the opportunity to see if any deteriorated areas awaited him as he rounded the tractor. Any distraction which prevented his observing the defect was of his own making, having parked the tractor trailer in the spot of his choosing. See Pirkle v. Robson Crossing, 272 Ga. App. 259 (612 SE2d 83) (2005).
Therefore, I believe that summary judgment was correctly granted to Atlanta South.