Traver v. Felton Manor, LLC.

365 Ga.App. 155

877 S.E.2d 688

TRAVER

v.FELTON MANOR, LLC.

A22A0861

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

August 23, 2022

The Dickinson Law Firm, Laura McDonnell Barron, Woodstock, Curtis Joel Dickinson, Woodstock, Ashby Thelen Lowry, Maxwell Kent Thelen, for Appellant.

Bernard Francis Kistler Jr., for Appellee.

Miller, Presiding Judge.

This premises liability case stems from Richard Baney's fall at a personal care home after the front automatic doors at the home closed on him. Virginia Lee Traver, as the administrator of Baney's estate, appeals from the grant of summary judgment to Felton Manor, LLC. On appeal, Traver argues that (1) genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether Felton Manor had superior knowledge of the hazard posed by the automatic door system that injured Baney; and (2) genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether Baney exercised ordinary care for his own safety when using the doors, notwithstanding his prior traversal through the doors. Having reviewed the record, we agree with Traver that a jury must decide both of these issues, and therefore we reverse the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Felton Manor.

Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Summary judgments enjoy no presumption of correctness on appeal, and an appellate court must satisfy itself de novo that the requirements of OCGA § 9-11-56 (c) have been met. In our de novo review of the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment, we must view the evidence, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.

(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Fair v. CV Underground, LLC , 340 Ga. App. 790, 798 S.E.2d 358 (2017). It is well settled that "the ‘routine’ issues of premises liability, i.e., the negligence of the defendant and the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's lack of ordinary care for personal safety are generally not susceptible of summary adjudication, and ... summary judgment is granted only when the evidence is plain, palpable, and undisputed." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Rozy Investments, Inc. v. Bristow , 276 Ga. App. 278, 281 (3), 623 S.E.2d 171 (2005).

So viewed, the evidence showed that Felton Manor is a personal care home licensed by the State of Georgia. Although Felton Manor's residents are independent, the former executive director described the population as "frail, elderly people" who cannot safely live on their own. Most of the residents use a walking aid, and some are "real slow to move" and can manage "just a pitter-patter ... a little bit of movement." The maintenance worker employed at the home testified similarly, explaining, "there's going to always be someone here that's slow, no matter what year it is.... It's a constant."

In 2015, Felton Manor installed new automatic hinged doors at the most commonly used entrance at the facility. Residents activated the front doors by pushing a button mounted inside the facility. The doors would then open outward, remain in that position for a few seconds, and then automatically close inward. The doors, however, did not feature a sensor that enabled them to remain open if someone was standing in the doorway.¹ As a result, if the doors shut on an individual, they would "bind up" against the person and "hang there" unless the person pushed against them. The force of the doors could also be adjusted so that the doors would not "knock you down." The maintenance worker, who is six feet, three inches tall and weighs 385 pounds, installed the automatic doors and tested the force by allowing the doors to shut against him. The force was not tested using any other method or adjusted after the doors were installed.

Baney was a 91-year-old resident at Felton Manor, and he used a "rollator," which is a wheeled mobility assistance device. Baney walked in a "shuffly" manner, which was "common" among the residents. On a morning in July 2017, Baney decided to go for a walk and headed to the automatic doors. After pressing the button to activate the doors, Baney stopped to converse with another resident who had asked him for the time. Baney concluded the conversation and proceeded through the doors, but they closed on him, causing him to fall to the ground. Baney underwent surgery for a broken hip and related treatment, but he was unable to resume his normal activities and experienced pain and medical issues related to the fall until his passing in August 2018. Following Baney's fall, Felton Manor placed a sensor on the doors which now prevents them from closing when an individual is crossing the doorway.

Baney filed a negligence action against Felton Manor in Fulton County State Court. After Baney's death, Traver, the administrator of his estate, was substituted as the plaintiff. Among other allegations, Traver claimed that Felton Manor knew or should have known that the doors posed a risk to elderly residents and that Felton Manor failed to maintain the doors in a safe condition. Felton Manor subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted after a hearing. In granting the motion, the trial court reasoned that (1) Felton Manor did not have any actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard which caused Baney's fall; and (2) Baney failed to exercise ordinary care for his safety when he stopped in the doorway to converse with another resident, instead of immediately proceeding through the doors. Traver now appeals.

1. First, Traver argues that fact issues remain as to whether Felton Manor had superior knowledge of the hazard posed by the doors. We agree that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether Felton Manor had superior knowledge that the doors posed an unreasonable risk to the residents.

"Under Georgia law, an owner or occupier of land owes its invitees a duty to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe. A proprietor is not the insurer of the safety of its invitees, but is bound to exercise ordinary care to protect its invitees from unreasonable risks of which it has superior knowledge." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Fair , supra, 340 Ga. App. at 792 (1), 798 S.E.2d 358. "This includes inspecting the premises to discover possible dangerous conditions of which the owner/occupier does not have actual knowledge, and taking reasonable precautions to protect invitees from dangers foreseeable from the arrangement or use of the premises." (Citation, punctuation and emphasis omitted.) Rozy Investments, Inc. , supra, 276 Ga. App. at 280 (4), 623 S.E.2d 171.

Given Felton Manor's status as a care provider for its residents, the residents are generally considered to be Felton Manor's invitees, and Felton Manor therefore owes its residents a duty to exercise ordinary care in keeping its premises safe. See, e.g., Pye v. Taylor & Bird, Inc. , 216 Ga. App. 814, 815, 456 S.E.2d 63 (1995) ("[T]he primary business purpose of a nursing home is to take care of residents who, because of age, infirmity or some ailment, are no longer able to take care of themselves. Because of the special relationship existing between the nursing home and its residents, the residents must generally be considered invitees of the home. Accordingly, as to such residents, the nursing home has a duty to exercise ordinary care in keeping its premises safe."). Further, because Felton Manor installed or authorized the installation of the automatic doors and maintained them, Felton Manor is presumed to have knowledge of the doors’ existence and the manner in which they operated. Rozy Investments, Inc. , supra, 276 Ga. App. at 279 (4), 623 S.E.2d 171 (defendant was presumed to have knowledge of the existence of hoses on its property, the length of the hoses, and the fact that they did not retract after being used). "Thus, this is not a foreign substance slip and fall case, and [Traver] may establish a cause of action by showing an act or omission by [Felton Manor] which was the proximate cause of [Baney's] injury and which [Baney] could not have avoided through the exercise of ordinary care." Id.

Here, a fact issue exists regarding whether Felton Manor had actual or constructive knowledge that the timed doors posed a hazard to its residents. First, Felton Manor knew of the distinct likelihood of the doors closing on the residents, given their ages, their mobility, their use of walking aids, and in light of the fact that the doors operated on a timed basis. Felton Manor's residents range in age from 70 to 104 years old. The majority of them use a walking aid, and some walk very slowly. In fact, after the automatic doors were installed, the slower residents were encouraged to "hurry up" in order to traverse the doorway before the allotted time elapsed. During the warmer months when this incident occurred, the door was calibrated to allow the residents between seven and ten seconds to traverse the doorway. The maintenance worker explained that if a resident went through the door with a wheelchair or walker, and they were "very, very slow, then it's possible that [the] door[s] could have come back on them." He added, "[b]ased on the timing, ... [i]f someone doesn't move, it's going to shut on them." Second, Felton Manor also knew that if the doors did close on an individual, they would exert ample force to "bind up" against the person and that the doors would "hang there" and "keep on" the person unless they pushed the doors. Felton Manor was equally aware that if the force of the doors was too high and they shut on an individual, the doors would "keep pulling" the person. Despite this knowledge, Felton Manor did not test or adjust the force to account for the general stature, strength, or agility of Felton Manor's...