Appeals Court Slams Door on Suit by Shopper Who Slammed Into Lenox Mall Door
The appeals court said the woman had already been through the same revolving door twice and thus could not claim she was unaware of its use on her third, ill-fated entry.
February 27, 2020 at 05:21 PM
4 minute read
A woman who twice negotiated a revolving door during a shopping trip to Lenox Square mall can't sue for damages after she walked face-first into an adjoining glass door on her third pass through.
Fannie Gervin's negligence suit against the mall's owners ran into Georgia's "prior traversal doctrine," which essentially says that if a person has already navigated a purported hazard, they can't come back and say they didn't know about it.
A Fulton County judge initially closed the door on the case, and the Georgia Court of Appeals left it shut on Thursday, ruling Gervin's claims that the automatic revolving door is a hazard that must be marked with warning signs, has no basis.
The opinion, written by Judge Todd Markle with the concurrence of Judge Christopher Coomer and Chief Judge Christopher McFadden, said the evidence—including mall video—"showed that Fannie simply ran into a stationary glass pane of the revolving door."
As detailed in the ruling, Gervin and her daughter went shopping at Lenox in 2015, entering through the revolving door. She went back through the door nearly an hour later to ask her husband, who was waiting outside, if he wanted ice cream.
"As she reentered the mall through the same revolving glass door, she indicated that it started to move, but then stopped before she could get out, and she slammed her head into the stationary glass wing of the door, sustaining injuries to her mouth, teeth, neck and upper back," the opinion said.
Gervin and her husband sued the property's owner, the Retail Property Trust, for claims including premises liability, negligence, vicarious liability, loss of consortium and attorney fees, claiming more than $22,000 in medical expenses.
The Gervins also retained an expert witness who "would testify that, among other things, the door was defective because there was no sign on the door to alert patrons of its moving glass parts, as recommended by the manufacturer," Markle wrote.
"The expert opined that the absence of a sign caused Fannie to become distracted and made the door dangerous."
RTP moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no evidence it had any knowledge the door presented a hazard, malfunctioned or was defective.
In 2019, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Eric Dunaway dismissed the case, ruling it was barred by the prior traversal doctrine.
Markle wrote that the "prior traversal rule provides that 'when a person has successfully negotiated an alleged dangerous condition on a previous occasion, that person is presumed to have equal knowledge of it and cannot recover for a subsequent injury resulting therefrom.'"
In this case, he said, "the revolving glass door, consisting of its stationary glass panes, was a static condition that Fannie had successfully entered and exited through twice that day.
"Fannie indicated she was familiar with revolving glass doors, she understood how such doors worked, and she was familiar with the fact that revolving doors have stationary parts, as well as moving parts, and she was able to differentiate between the two."
Thus, said Markle, Dunaway was correct to dismiss the couple's claims.
Gervin's lawyer, Yinka Omole of Atlanta's Law Office of Yinka T. Omole, said they are considering their next move.
"My client has yet to decide if she would request the Court of Appeals to reconsider its opinion or reconsideration before the en banc panel of the court," said Omole via email.
"However, she is disappointed that the court failed to acknowledge the special nature and danger inherent in automatic revolving doors," he said.
The mall's owner is represented by Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith partner R. Scott Masterson, who said the ruling was largely due to the evidence captured on camera.
"We are always happy when our clients prevail," said Masterson via email. "While we might be inclined to take credit for brilliant lawyering, the fact that the incident and prior traversal was on HD video probably should get the credit."
"For those scoring at home," he said, "mark us down for the assist."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHungry for Stability After Execs Exit, Papa John's Gives Legal Chief Big Retention Bonus
4 minute readWalmart Ordered to Pay $1.2M by State Jury for Employee-Caused Injury in Georgia Store
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Pennsylvania Law Schools Are Seeing Double-Digit Boosts in 2025 Applications
- 2Meta’s New Content Guidelines May Result in Increased Defamation Lawsuits Among Users
- 3State Court Rejects Uber's Attempt to Move IP Suit to Latin America
- 4Florida Supreme Court Disciplined 17 Attorneys
- 5Sex Work at Wyndham? Judge Allows 10th Human-Trafficking Suit
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250