Court Opinion

ID: 9567374
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:53:17.843838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:00:34.927484
License: Public Domain

McMurray, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent as I do not believe a loose green bean in the highest traffic area of a grocery store is such an open and obvious danger so as to authorize the majority’s conclusion (as a matter of law) that Cora Baker’s own carelessness was the sole proximate cause of her injuries.
“In Barentine v. Kroger Co., 264 Ga. 224, 225 (443 SE2d 485) (1994), our Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs explanation as to why he was not looking where he was going as he approached the check-out counter, that being, that he was looking at the cashier to tell him he was ready to check out, created a fact issue for jury determination. ‘This testimony is some evidence that Barentine exercised reasonable care for his own safety in approaching the check-out counter.’ Id.” Sheriff’s Best Buy v. Davis, 215 Ga. App. 290, 291 (450 SE2d 319). In the case sub judice, Cora Baker testified that she had *516just left the checkout counter and entered the highest traffic area of the store (with a fresh bag of Winn Dixie doughnuts) when she slipped and fell. Baker also explained that she saw her daughter waiting for her at the entrance of the store just before the fall. “If the facts of Barentine establish ‘some evidence’ that Barentine exercised reasonable care for his own safety, then clearly [Cora Baker’s testimony, along with the favorable inference that the green bean was not clearly visible against the color of Winn Dixie’s floor, constitute] a much stronger case of such evidence.” Sheriff’s Best Buy v. Davis, 215 Ga. App. 290, 291, supra.
Decided December 4, 1995
Reconsideration denied December 19, 1995.
Alan D. Tucker, for appellant.
Lee, Black, Scheer & Hart, Christopher L. Rouse, for appellee.
I believe the trial court erred in granting Winn Dixie’s motion for summary judgment. See Grovner v. Winn Dixie Stores, 218 Ga. App. 495 (462 SE2d 427). Also see Van Dyke v. Emro Marketing Co., 211 Ga. App. 744 (440 SE2d 469), where this Court reversed summary judgment even though there was evidence that the plaintiff had prior knowledge of the hazard which allegedly caused his fall.