Court Opinion

ID: 9853904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:57:12.246408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:14.530689
License: Public Domain

Birdsong, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
Although I agree the trial court properly denied BBB Service Company’s motion for summary judgment, I write separately to make clear my objections to the analysis used by the majority in affirming that result. Additionally, I deem it important to note that certain inaccuracies in the majority’s narrative of the facts played no part in my disposition of this case.
1. If the majority’s statement that a movant for summary judgment has “the burden of establishing the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact,” is intended to mean that movants for summary judgment must prove affirmatively the nonexistence of any genuine issues of material fact, this statement is contrary to our present summary judgment law as established in Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (405 SE2d 474). If this statement is intended to convey the same meaning as the burden stated in Lau’s Corp., then why state it differently? OCGA § 9-11-56 (c) states that summary judgment shall be granted if the matters in the record “show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” The Code section says nothing about the movant’s burden to demonstrate anything. The obligations of the parties currently applicable in motions for summary judgment were announced in Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, supra, in which our Supreme Court unequivocally held that a “defendant who will not bear the burden of proof at trial need not affirmatively disprove the nonmoving party’s case; instead, the burden on the moving party may be discharged by pointing out by reference to the affidavits, depositions and other documents in the record that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Id. at 491. Although apparently little noticed by both the bench and bar (as unfortunately evidenced by numerous briefs filed and decisions reached by this Court and trial courts relying on pre-Law’s Corp. precedent after the Lau’s Corp. opinion was published), this holding was a watershed in the law of summary judgment in this state.
Before Lau’s Corp., “ ‘the burden of establishing the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact [was] upon the movant[ ]’ ” (Alterman Foods v. Ligon, 246 Ga. 620, 625 (272 SE2d 327)) was construed to mean that the movant had the burden of disproving the existence of any genuine issues of material fact. After Lau’s Corp., however, the “party who will not bear the burden of proof at trial *436need not conclusively prove the opposite of each element of the non-moving party’s case. Rather, that party must demonstrate by reference to evidence in the record that there is an absence of evidence to support at least one essential element of the non-moving party’s case. In other words, summary judgment is appropriate when the court, viewing all the facts and reasonable inferences from those facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, concludes that the evidence does not create a triable issue as to each essential element of the case. In so holding, we overrule anything to the contrary.” (Emphasis supplied.) Id. at 495 (4). Consequently, all cases, including Alterman Foods, decided prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Lau’s Corp., which placed the burden on the movant to disprove or negate with proof to the contrary elements of the non-movant’s case on which the non-movant would have the burden of proof at trial, were overruled to the extent they conflicted with Lau’s Corp. “Thus, after Lau’s Corp., movants for summary judgment are no longer required to disprove the essential elements of the plaintiff’s case.” Coffey v. Wal-Mart Stores, 224 Ga. App. 824, 827 (482 SE2d 720). Therefore, contrary to the majority’s assertion, Wendy’s had no burden to establish the nonexistence of any material factual issues by disproving the essential elements of Glass’ case. To the extent that Alterman Foods and Hall v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, 223 Ga. App. 88 (476 SE2d 789), conflict with Lau’s Corp. on this point, they are not valid precedent.
The elements required to establish liability on Wendy’s in a slip and fall case in which the proprietor intentionally placed a substance on the floor are set out in Alterman Foods v. Ligón, supra at 623-624. Notwithstanding Wendy’s evidence concerning the nature of the tile floor and the properties of its cleaner, Glass’ evidence was sufficient to show that a genuine issue exists over whether the floor was slippery either because of the product used by Wendy’s or because Wendy’s employees did not use the product properly. Additionally, nothing in the record shows that Glass failed to exercise ordinary care for her own safety.
Moreover, as the manager’s purported statement, if believed, is sufficient to show that Wendy’s was aware a dangerous condition existed, but refused to remedy the situation, a genuine issue also exists over whether punitive damages are authorized. Therefore, I agree that the trial court did not err by denying Wendy’s motion for summary judgment.
2. The majority’s factual narrative suggests that the affidavit of Jack Helton stated that “obviously such product creates an emulsion of grease and dirt when it is applied to the floor”; “clearly, subsequent dry mopping would simply spread the grease emulsion, if it is not first removed properly”; and “however, the non-slippery character of *437the degreaser itself would be irrelevant if the resultant greasy emulsion is not properly removed, which event could support a claim of active negligence.” Although these statements appear to be reasonable conclusions or inferences which might be drawn, they are not contained in Helton’s affidavit.
3. Additionally, the assertion that such statements would support a claim of active negligence is contrary to our law because the negligence, if any, predated Glass’ arrival at Wendy’s and her injuries plainly arose from a condition of the premises. Lipham v. Federated Dept. Stores, 263 Ga. 865 (440 SE2d 193) (differentiating between cases concerning active negligence and conditions of the premises); Trammell v. Baird, 262 Ga. 124, 126 (413 SE2d 445) (stating the duty owed when negligence arises from static or passive conditions). If the majority’s contention on this point is correct, the standards for the second kind of slip and fall cases discussed in Alterman Foods would be effectively eliminated. In any event, as demonstrated above, these factual assertions were unimportant to my consideration of the case.
4. Although the continued validity of the Alterman Foods standards has been questioned by some members of this Court, the majority of this court recognizes that Alterman Foods remains binding precedent. See Adams v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 227 Ga. App. 695 (490 SE2d 150); Hartley v. Macon Bacon Tune, 227 Ga. App. 679 (490 SE2d 403). In addition to their continued authority as binding precedent, however, the Alterman Foods standards have continued significance because they remain a legitimate system for balancing the interests competing in these cases.
It is generally accepted that “mere ownership of land and buildings does not render one liable for injuries sustained by persons who have entered thereon or therein; the owner is not an insurer of the safety of entrants on his premises.” Adams & Adams, Ga. Law of Torts (1996 ed.), § 4-1, p. 97. Thus, because owners are not insurers, proving only that a person fell is insufficient to establish the proprietor’s negligence. “What the law requires is not warranty of the safety of everybody from everything, but such diligence toward making the store safe as a good business man is in such matters accustomed to use.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Alterman Foods, supra at 624. Therefore, “to say that the issue is one for the jury in every such case presents an intolerable burden on innocent or even the most diligent merchants.” Id.
Nevertheless, our law requires that owners or occupiers exercise ordinary care in keeping their premises safe (OCGA § 51-3-1) and requires them to exercise diligence in making their premises as safe as ordinarily prudent businesses would. Alterman Foods, supra at 624. Further, Alterman Foods recognizes that premises may be *438unsafe not only because of the acts or omissions of the proprietors but also because of the negligence of customers and others over whom the proprietor may have no control. Thus, under Alterman Foods proprietors may be held liable by failing to keep their premises safe not only because they placed substances there, but also because they did not correct dangerous conditions after the proprietors learned or should have learned of them.
Under these conflicting demands, it will always be difficult to create bright line rules for disposition of slip and fall cases, but even if one attempted to do so, it is difficult to comprehend what such rules could be established other than one side or the other always would prevail. See for example the replacement suggested by the dissent in Adams v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., supra.
Nevertheless, even though using the Alterman Foods standards may not permit establishment of the clear, definite guidance some apparently desire, they do provide a reasonable means for consideration of these cases. Further, notwithstanding the criticism, the Alterman Foods standards cannot be eliminated easily without effecting major changes in the underlying legal relationships. Even if one believed that the law should be changed to make owners or occupiers insurers of safety, we must recognize that bringing about such a significant change in our law would have associated and perhaps unintended consequences. What we should not do is achieve that change, as I believe the majority opinion would do, without acknowledging that a fundamental change in our law would result.
As they currently exist, I believe the Alterman Foods standards presently provide sufficient guidance for advising clients on the merits of their cases and/or on what actions should be undertaken in given situations to avoid potential liability. For example, neither customers who slip and fall, but who do not exercise ordinary care for their own safety by adequately watching where they are going and avoiding clearly visible foreign substance on the floor, nor proprietors who fail to institute reasonable precautions to detect and clean up foreign substances or other dangerous conditions should expect to be successful under the current Alterman Foods standards. In my view, the difficulty in applying these standards that some commentators have noted recently is not with the standards, but with the difficulty this Court has had in incorporating the Alterman Foods standards with the changes in summary judgment procedures brought about by our Supreme Court in Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins.
I am authorized to state that Judge Ruffin joins in this special concurrence.
*439Decided September 9, 1997
Bentley, Karesh & Seacrest, Gary L. Seacrest, Gerald P. Ruleman, for appellants.
Hart & McIntyre, George W. Hart, Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., for appellee.