Court Opinion

ID: 9607429
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:58:40.241155+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:38.717048
License: Public Domain

McMurray, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the affirmance of summary judgment in plaintiff Dorothy Jenkins’ tort action against defendant Bi-Lo, Inc. In my view, a jury — and not this Court — should determine whether it is clear from the testimony of Richard Woodard, Bi-Lo’s produce clerk, that in fact no string beans were on the floor where *738plaintiff fell when he inspected that area ten minutes before the mishap.
1. On this particular occasion, plaintiff had been in defendant’s market “about one minute [as she] picked [her] cart up and went around the corner.” She “was going to the back of [defendant’s] store to the meat counter. But [she] didn’t get [any] further than around the corner from where the baskets were. And when [she] turned the corner with the basket, [she] was sliding down on [her] ankle.” In its answer, defendant admitted the allegations that “photographs of the plaintiff’s lower leg and foot and of beans on the floor were taken by store personnel, and that plaintiff reported she slipped and fell on beans. . . .” When the store manager, Bennie Purvis, investigated the accident, he saw a snap bean on the floor, “12 to 14 feet” from where the snap beans were displayed. “It had been stepped on or it had been disfigured.” To Bennie Purvis, it looked “[n]ew.” But according to plaintiff, “They looked like they [were] old. I mean, they didn’t look like new, like fresh string beans. ... It was just messy around the area.” Since the evidence on this point is in conflict it must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff as non-movant. Thus, there is evidence'that the beans looked old, not fresh, and were messy. In my view, this authorizes the favorable inference that the beans had been there for some time, i.e., long enough to have been traipsed through by other patrons. “The mere fact of the presence of a banana peel on a floor may not be sufficient to show that it has been there long enough for reasonable care to require the defendant to discover and remove it, but if it is ‘black, flattened out and gritty,’ the conclusion may reasonably be drawn. It is for the court to determine, in the first instance, whether reasonable persons on the jury may draw it.” Prosser & Keeton, The Law of Torts (5th ed. 1984), § 39, p. 243 and footnote 14, citing Anjou v. Boston Elevated R. Co., 94 NE 386 (Mass. 1911).
2. Plaintiff affirmed that she “was looking where [she] was going.” “From a standing-up position looking down [she] could [not] have seen the beans . . . [b]ecause [she] was pushing the cart around the corner, and the cart was in front of [her]. And [she] didn’t see them [the beans] until [she] went down. . . .” Consequently, there is no admission by plaintiff that she failed to exercise ordinary care for her own behalf. Compare Baker v. Winn Dixie Stores, 219 Ga. App. 513 (465 SE2d 710).
3. The complaint further alleged that the dangerous condition “was known to the defendant or it had existed for a sufficient length of time so that defendant should have known of it.” Defendant attempted to pierce this allegation of knowledge with the testimony of Richard Woodard, who has since been transferred to another location because of “productivity problems.” According to Bennie Purvis, *739Richard Woodard did not know “how to train or control the other associates in his department.” Richard Woodard also had “[p]roblems with such as freshness checks. Ensuring that the associates were doing freshness checks, having only quality produce on the rack.” Richard Woodard affirmed that he “used to be a manager and [is] now a clerk[.]” He accepted a pay differential of approximately $130 per week because he “decided to step out of the [managerial] position.” “[I]t was time for [Richard Woodard] to take some of the stress out of [his] life at that time.”
As recounted by the majority, Richard Woodard testified that “about ten minutes” before the incident, he inspected the area. He knew that loose beans on the floor were a recurring safety hazard. In his experience, “when people pick the green beans up, as they pick them up, they’re just dropping — one single bean individual bean is dropping out of their hands, and, of course, they’re not going to pick them up. They’ll just walk away from them.” Richard Woodard affirmed that he had “pick[ed] up . . . other green beans off the floor that day[.]” “During a day’s time, he might pick up 20, 30, but not in the area where she fell at.” (Emphasis supplied.) Rather, he picked them up “[r]ight where the green beans are stored.” This was, in Richard Woodard’s estimation, “about 20 feet. . .” from where plaintiff fell. Richard Woodard could not recall that photographs were taken of the scene.
“The credibility of a witness is a matter to be determined by the jury under proper instructions from the court!’ (Emphasis supplied.) OCGA § 24-9-80. In my view, the jury could disbelieve the testimony of Richard Woodard, who voluntarily took a pay cut of $6,500 in order to return to a clerk’s position after being a less than successful produce manager for defendant. If he failed to manage his subordinates to assure freshness, it is possible he was less than diligent about safety matters. Moreover, the jury could believe that he was not accustomed to looking for beans at a distance of 20 feet from the produce section where they are stored, but relied on previous experience in finding them only in front of that section. Thus, the jury could conclude that Richard Woodard did not look, or if he looked, that he yet missed the beans that were indisputably there when plaintiff slipped. In my judgment, the trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact, including the credibility of defendant’s main witness, Richard Woodard, remain for jury determination. See Mitchell v. Rainey, 187 Ga. App. 510 (370 SE2d 673). As my colleagues in the majority would nevertheless affirm that unwarranted grant of summary judgment, I respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to state that Judge Blackburn joins in this dissent.
*740Decided December 3, 1996.
Jeffrey S. Bowman, for appellant.
Fulcher, FLagler, Reed, Hanks & Harper, Neil S. Bitting, Jr., Barry A. Fleming, for appellee.