In a slip and fall case, the plaintiff must show that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard that caused the injury in a slip and fall case. But if the plaintiff’s knowledge was equal to or greater than that of the defendant, then the case will be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals recently affirmed a granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendant in a slip and fall case. In Diaz v. Wild Adventures, Inc., — S.E.2d —, 2008 WL 239859 (Ga.App. 2008), the plaintiff fell at an amusement park when stepping in a puddle of water on a ride’s metal walkway. Diaz admitted that he was aware that rain water had accumulated around the ride, having seen water flowing down the sides of the ride and onto the floor. Diaz also admitted that he noticed the floor of the ride was very wet and dirty before attempting to enter the ride.
The cars on the ride where Diaz fell traveled over small carbon deposits, which made the car’s floor appear dirty. Because Wild Adventure’s facility manager acknowledged that graphite is a type of carbon, Diaz argued that Wild Adventure was aware that graphite, a known lubricant, was on the floor of the ride, making it more slippery.
But the Court of Appeals did not agree. It found that Diaz did not prove that carbon dust made the floor more slippery than rain water alone and that Wild Adventures did not have constructive knowledge of the hazard because it cleaned the floor each morning. Since Diaz failed to prove that Wild Adventures had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged hazard, it did not have the requisite superior knowledge; thus, the court affirmed summary judgment for the defendant.
For more information, please contact Tim Buckley at (404) 633-9230.
