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."