traversal doctrine in Georgia

2023We grant the petition for writ of certiorari, not to address these issues, but rather litigation.” Phillips v. Harmon, 297 Ga. 386, 393 (II) (774 SE2d 596) (2015) (citation and punctuation omitted). 3 “Our rules contemplate that we may grant a petition for certiorari and dispose of the case summarily, without full briefing and oral argument,” and we elect to do so here “because the issue we resolve would not benefit from further briefing and argument.” Sanchious v. State, 309 Ga. 580, 581 n.1 (847 SE2d 166) (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted). 4 Brixmor asserts that spoliation sanctions

2023We grant the petition for writ of certiorari, not to address these issues, but rather litigation.” Phillips v. Harmon, 297 Ga. 386, 393 (II) (774 SE2d 596) (2015) (citation and punctuation omitted). 3 “Our rules contemplate that we may grant a petition for certiorari and dispose of the case summarily, without full briefing and oral argument,” and we elect to do so here “because the issue we resolve would not benefit from further briefing and argument.” Sanchious v. State, 309 Ga. 580, 581 n.1 (847 SE2d 166) (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted). 4 Brixmor asserts that spoliation sanctions

2023Compare Crebs v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, 360 Ga. App. 121 , 124, n.4 ( 860 SE2d 16 802) (2021) (affirming grant of summary judgment to defendant in slip and fall because fence over which plaintiff tripped and fell was open and obvious, but distinguishing Pinder, Hagadorn, and Perkins on ground the static conditions in those cases were not discernable due to optical illusions and evidence of poor lighting).6 As our Supreme Court has advised: 6 NFCC stresses that our holding in Milledgeville Manor Partners v. Lewis, 328 Ga. App. 482 ( 763 SE2d 723 ) (2014) applies, claiming that where there is u

2023Compare Crebs v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, 360 Ga. App. 121 , 124, n.4 ( 860 SE2d 16 802) (2021) (affirming grant of summary judgment to defendant in slip and fall because fence over which plaintiff tripped and fell was open and obvious, but distinguishing Pinder, Hagadorn, and Perkins on ground the static conditions in those cases were not discernable due to optical illusions and evidence of poor lighting).6 As our Supreme Court has advised: 6 NFCC stresses that our holding in Milledgeville Manor Partners v. Lewis, 328 Ga. App. 482 ( 763 SE2d 723 ) (2014) applies, claiming that where there is u

2020“In slip-and-fall actions, summary judgment is appropriate only in plain, palpable, and undisputed cases.” Id. 3 Under the prior traversal presumption, when a person has successfully negotiated an alleged dangerous condition on a previous occasion, that person is presumed to have knowledge of it and cannot recover for a subsequent injury resulting therefrom.

2020RPT also filed a motion to exclude the testimony of the Gervins’s expert witness, asserting that his testimony did not meet the standard for admissibility under OCGA § 24-7-702 (b) and Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579 (113 SC 2786, 125 LE2d 469) (1993).

2020Likewise, we are unpersuaded by the Gervins’s attempt to distinguish Wittenberg, 207 Ga. App. at 263 , from the present case because, although it is not a prior traversal case, the Wittenberg holding confirms the longstanding principle that the owner has no duty to protect an invitee against a hazard or defect that is obvious and apparent. 7 2.

2020As such, Fannie had equal knowledge of the revolving door and its stationary parts, and the trial court therefore properly concluded that the Gervins’s claims are barred by the prior traversal doctrine.3 3 We are unpersuaded by the Gervins’s reliance on Muskett v. Sketchly Cleaners, Inc., 297 Ga. App. 561, 564 (3) ( 677 SE2d 731 ) (2009), and Jones Lang LaSalle Operations v. Johnson, 350 Ga. App. 439 .

2020Given our conclusion in Division 1 that the claims are barred by the prior traversal doctrine, the expert’s testimony as to causation is irrelevant.4 Scapa Dryer Fabrics, 299 Ga. at 289 .