Court Opinion

ID: 9584754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:52:24.255866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:00.108326
License: Public Domain

Pope, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent to the majority opinion. It is undisputed in this case, that as a paying customer of Shenanigan’s, Howell was an invitee. See Lee v. Myers, 189 Ga. App. 87, 88 (1) (374 SE2d 797) (1988). Moreover, it is undisputed that Disco Mania and Three Rivers had undertaken to provide security to the patrons of the bar. “[A] proprietor [has a duty] to protect an invitee from injury caused by the misconduct of employees, customers and third persons if there is any reasonable apprehension of danger from the conduct of said persons or if injury could be prevented by the proprietor through the exercise of ordinary care and diligence. Ordinarily, even where the proprietor’s negligence is shown, he would be insulated from liability by the intervention of an illegal act which is the proximate cause of the injury. However, the above rule has been held inapplicable if the defendant (original wrongdoer) had reasonable grounds for apprehending that such criminal act would be committed.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Bishop v. Mangal Bhai Enterprises, 194 Ga. App. 874, 876 (3) (392 SE2d 535) (1990). Additionally, once a proprietor undertakes the duty of providing security for invitees it must do so in a non-negligent manner. Id. at 877.
*893Decided March 17, 1995
Reconsideration denied March 28, 1995
L. Cleveland Burton, Keith J. Williams, for appellant.
Drew, Eckl & Farnham, B. Holland Pritchard, Bruce A. Taylor, Jr., for appellees.
As the majority readily admits, Disco Mania’s and Three Rivers’ actions in this case, in light of the knowledge they allegedly possessed, clearly would constitute a breach of the duty they owed to Howell. Although the majority concludes that Howell had superior knowledge of the potential danger to him by remaining in the bar after seeing Bennett and Morriss, I cannot agree. Clearly an issue of material fact exists in this case as to whether Howell’s knowledge of any potential danger to him was equal or superior to that of the defendants. This is especially true in light of the purported testimony of Mrs. Greene, to the effect that on the night in question, she knew what Bennett and Morriss were there for, and yet still let them into the bar knowing they had previously been banned for life. Consequently, I would reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Disco Mania and Three Rivers because there are issues in this case that should be determined by a jury.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge McMurray joins in this dissent.