Knight v. Villa N. GA, LLC

LAQUISHA KNIGHT, Plaintiff, v. VILLA NORTH GA, LLC, ROYAL AMERICAN MANAGEMENT, INC.,JOHN DOE, ABC CORPORATION, and XYZ ENTITY, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 7:19-CV-22 (HL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION

March 26, 2021

ORDER

Plaintiff Laquisha Knight filed this premises liability action to recover for damages she sustained after falling in a common area at her apartment complex. Before the Court is Defendants Villa North GA, LLC and Royal American Management, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 28). After reviewing the pleadings, briefs, affidavits, and other evidentiary materials presented, the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law and GRANTS Defendants' motion.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Laquisha Knight was a tenant in Apartment K-6 at Villa North Apartments ("Villa North") in Thomasville, Georgia from 2014 until 2018. (Knight Dep., p. 18). During her tenancy, the apartment complex was owned by Defendant Villa North GA, LLC and managed by Defendant Royal American Management, Inc. (DSOFM, ¶¶ 1-2).¹ Sharmeika Hall served as Villa North's on-site property manager from September 15, 2015 through March 12, 2017. (Id. at ¶ 3). Jacary Byrd was the assistant property manager from August 24, 2015 through March 12, 2017, when he was promoted to property manager. (Id.; Byrd Decl., ¶ 2).

On the afternoon of October 11, 2016, Plaintiff's mother, who also lived in Villa North, asked Plaintiff to bring her a frozen chicken. (Knight Dep., p. 48, 62). Plaintiff testified that she rarely walked from her apartment to her mother's. (Id. at p. 67, 70). When Plaintiff did walk from her apartment to her mother's she took a route that led her past the complex's mailboxes. (Id. at p. 68). The day of her fall, she instead walked through a grassy area between the K-building and a neighboring building. (Id. at p. 64; Ex. 3). Plaintiff stated that she walked through the grassy area only two or three times prior to her fall. (Id. at p. 67-68).

As Plaintiff walked between the buildings, either her foot or her heal caught in a hole. (Id. at p. 80). She was thrown onto her back and hit her head. (Id. at p. 79-80). Some children playing close by came over to ask if she was okay. (Id. at p. 80). Plaintiff was not aware of the hole prior to her fall and did not notice it until she was being helped up from the ground. (Id. at p. 70-71, 91). She describedthe hole as deep and looking as though something had been removed from the ground:

To me it looked like it was something that was stuck there because it was real deep. And it's, like I don't know if it was something had been removed or not, but I figure it was probably either a gas pipeline or either - what they call it? A pole or either a light pole.

(Id. at p. 71). Plaintiff said that the hole was wide and appeared to be lined with cement. (Id.).

Plaintiff's boyfriend Mo Calhoun was waiting for Plaintiff in the parking lot outside her building when she fell. (Calhoun Dep., p. 10-11). He did not see her fall, but when he saw Plaintiff on the ground, he ran to help her. (Id. at p. 11, 14). Plaintiff told Calhoun that she fell in a hole. (Id. at p. 20). Calhoun testified that grass covered the hole, and it was difficult to see. (Id. at p. 21-23, 35). However, Calhoun also testified that he could not confirm whether he saw the hole because "there was a lot of grass." (Id. at p. 36).

Shonese Mills, a friend of Plaintiff's, was nearby and heard crying. (Mills Dep., p. 30). When she went to investigate, Mills saw Plaintiff lying on the ground. (Id. at p. 35). Mills and Calhoun helped Plaintiff off the ground. (Id. at p. 36). Plaintiff was in pain. (Id. at p. 40). Mills was not aware of the hole that caused Plaintiff's fall until this incident, even though her grandchildren often played in the area. (Id. at p. 51, 55, 58). Mills testified that she did not inspect the hole closely. (Id. at p. 55). She thought "it was a little deep, but it wasn't thatdeep." (Id. at p. 56). To Mills it appeared as though "something was there and, like somebody had pulled it up" or "like rubbish, like somebody, like, kicked up some hole, like a dirt, like they just dug it up or something. . . . or maybe it kind of rained and the rain could have did it." (Id). Mills is familiar with Villa North. (Id. at p. 11). She has lived in the apartment complex off and on since she was a child. (Id.). She indicated that she had no recollection of anything being removed in the area where Plaintiff fell that could have caused the hole. (Id. at p. 57). She thought perhaps a child pulled something out of the ground. (Id. at p. 56).

Neither Sharmeika Hall nor Jacary Byrd had knowledge of the hole before Plaintiff's fall. (Hall Dep., p. 64, 66; Byrd Decl., ¶ 4). Hall further testified that she was not aware of the removal of any fencepost, pipe, or anything else in the area where Plaintiff fell. (Hall Dep., p. 69). According to Hall, members of Villa North's management and maintenance team performed weekly walking inspections throughout the entire apartment complex. (Id. at p. 41) During these inspections, they examined the exterior of the buildings, checked for erosion, and observed any issues with the grounds and sidewalks. (Id.). If any defect, such as a hole, was discovered during the walkthrough, maintenance would immediately address it. (Id. at p. 70). A work order would be prepared for any repair. (Id.).

Davis Lawn Care provided lawn maintenance for the apartment complex. (Id. at p. 54). The lawn care company cut the grass, trimmed the bushes, and cleaned the fence line. (Id. at p. 55). From approximately March or April throughSeptember or October of each year, Davis Lawn Care provided services once a week. (Id. at p. 53-54). In the winter months, from around September or October through March or April, the landscaping company provided services every two weeks. (Id.). Davis Lawn Care reported any unsafe conditions they observed. (Id. at p. 55).

II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate when "the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A genuine issue of material fact arises only when "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). When considering a motion for summary judgment, the court must evaluate all of the evidence, together with any logical inferences, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. at 254-55. The court may not, however, make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence. Id. at 255; see also Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000).

III. DISCUSSION

Under Georgia law, "[a]n owner or occupier of land has a legal duty, enforceable by lawsuit, to exercise ordinary care to keep and maintain itspremises and the approaches in a condition that does not pose an unreasonable risk of foreseeable harm to the invited public." Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. Brown, 285 Ga. 442 (2009); O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1 ("Where an owner or occupier of land, by express or implied invitation, induces or leads others to come upon his premises for any lawful purpose, he is liable in damages to such persons for injuries caused by his failure to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe."). Nevertheless, a property owner "is not an insurer of the safety of its invitees," and the "mere occurrence of an injury does not create a presumption of negligence." Kennestone Hosp. v. Harris, 285 Ga. App. 393, 393-94 (2007) (citation and punctuation omitted).

"Proof of an injury, without more, is not enough to establish a proprietor's liability." Ford v. Bank of Am. Corp., 277 Ga. App. 708, 709 (2006) (citing Sams v. Wal-Mart Stores, 228 Ga. App. 314, 316 (1997)). To recover in a slip and fall action, the injured party "must prove (1) that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard; and (2) that the plaintiff lacked knowledge of the hazard despite the exercise of ordinary care due to actions or conditions within the control of the owner/occupier." Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735, 748-49 (1997).

Plaintiff has presented no evidence of Defendants' actual knowledge of the hole that caused Plaintiff's fall.² To avoid summary judgment, Plaintiff therefore must point to evidence that Defendants had constructive knowledge of the hole. "Constructive knowledge can be shown by evidence that a proprietor's failure to discover the hazard resulted from its failure to exercise reasonable care in inspecting the premises." Witt v. Ben Carter Prop., LLC, 303 Ga. App. 107, 110 (2010). "[T]he evidence must show that the hazardous condition existed on the premises for a sufficient period of time such that [the defendants] should have discovered and removed the hazard." Id. (quoting Armenise v. Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt, Inc., 219 Ga. App. 591, 593 (1995)). "An owner/occupier is on constructive notice of what a reasonable inspection would reveal." Jackson v. Waffle House, 245 Ga. App. 371, 373 (2000) (citations omitted); see also Hansen v. Cooper, 253 Ga. App. 533, 536 (2002) ("[T]he law requires only the exercise of ordinary care, not extraordinary care.").

Plaintiff points the Court to the Georgia Court of Appeals' recent decision in Watson v. Dana, 356 Ga. App. 645 (2020). There, the court concluded that the plaintiff's "testimony regarding the size of the hole and the overgrowth covering it would permit a reasonable jury to infer both that [the hole] had been in existence for a substantial period of time and that it was large enough to have been observable during routine mowing and maintenance." Id. at 647 (quoting Lawless v. Sasnett...