Williams v. EMRO Marketing Co.
97 Fulton County D. Rep. 3949, 494 S.E.2d 218, 229 Ga. App. 468 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a slip-and-fall negligence case, circumstantial evidence that raises a reasonable inference as to the cause of the fall is sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact to survive a motion for summary judgment, even if the plaintiff cannot personally identify the substance that caused the fall.
Facts:
- On February 18, 1993, it rained at the location of an EMRO Marketing Company gas station.
- Overnight, the temperature dropped to approximately 20 degrees Fahrenheit.
- A downspout from a canopy over the gas pumps regularly discharged water onto the pavement below.
- On the morning of February 19, 1993, Nathaniel Williams stopped for gas at the EMRO station.
- After paying inside, Williams returned to his car and slipped and fell, injuring himself.
- Williams did not see any ice before or after his fall and did not know what substance caused him to slip.
- Another customer, Gregory Perkins, observed Williams on the ground in an "iced area," saw ice on the pavement where Williams fell, and noted icicles hanging from the canopy above the spot.
- Perkins assisted Williams from the iced area and picked up a large piece of ice he believed Williams had slipped on.
Procedural Posture:
- Nathaniel Williams and his wife sued EMRO Marketing Company in a trial court for injuries from a slip-and-fall incident.
- EMRO filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing there was no evidence that ice was the cause in fact of Williams' fall.
- The trial court granted EMRO's motion for summary judgment.
- The Williamses (appellants) appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals of Georgia, where EMRO was the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does sufficient circumstantial evidence of a hazard exist to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the cause of a fall, thereby precluding summary judgment, when the plaintiff cannot personally identify what caused him to slip?
Opinions:
Majority - Beasley, Judge
Yes, sufficient circumstantial evidence exists to create a genuine issue of material fact. Circumstantial evidence which raises a reasonable inference of the cause of the fall, unrebutted by positive evidence, is sufficient to survive summary judgment. Here, evidence of freezing temperatures, a witness observing Williams lying in an "iced area," and the presence of ice where he fell is enough for a jury to infer that ice caused the fall. Williams' own lack of knowledge about what caused him to slip is not dispositive, as a person can be disoriented by a fall and unable to investigate. This circumstantial evidence supports a finding that Williams slipped on the ice upon which he lay, creating a triable issue for a jury.
Dissenting - Banke, Judge
No, sufficient circumstantial evidence does not exist to create a genuine issue of material fact. Proof of a fall alone does not establish negligence, and Williams presented no probative evidence as to what caused his fall. Williams repeatedly testified that he never saw any ice and did not know what he slipped on. Allowing an inference that he slipped on ice is mere speculation and conjecture, especially since he could have slipped on oil or grease commonly found at a gas station. The majority's holding improperly shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to prove its premises were safe from an unknown danger, essentially making the business an insurer of its customers' safety.
Concurring - Ruffin, Judge
Yes, sufficient circumstantial evidence exists. On a motion for summary judgment, the court must view all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Williams. A jury could reasonably infer from the facts—prior rain, freezing temperatures, water drainage, and witness testimony of ice—that Williams slipped on a frozen patch of water. The dissent errs by speculating on other possible causes, which fails to view the evidence in the light most favorable to Williams. Williams met his burden by pointing to specific evidence that gives rise to a triable issue, which is all that is required to defeat summary judgment.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the evidentiary standard for causation in slip-and-fall cases at the summary judgment stage in Georgia. It establishes that a plaintiff's case can proceed to a jury based on strong circumstantial evidence, even without direct evidence or the plaintiff's own testimony identifying the cause. This precedent makes it more difficult for defendants to obtain summary judgment by merely highlighting the plaintiff's uncertainty. The ruling reinforces the principle that where reasonable minds can differ on the inferences drawn from the evidence, the question of causation is for the jury, not the judge, to decide.
