Richard G. and Deborah Jarrell filed a personal injury action against related entities, JDC & Associates, LLC “JDC” and Jolly Development Corporation “Jolly”, after Richard Jarrell was injured when he fell on property owned by the appellees. JDC and Jolly filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that as a matter of law, they were entitled to judgment in their favor on the Jarrells’ negligence claim because there was no evidence of willful or wanton acts by JDC. The trial court agreed, concluding that Richard Jarrell was a licensee on the premise; that JDC and Jolly did not breach the duty owed to him in his capacity as a licensee; that there was no competent evidence of willful or wanton conduct on the part of JDC and Jolly; and that there was no evidence that Jarrell’s fall was caused by a mantrap or pitfall on the premises. We affirm. To prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 c. A defendant may do this by showing the court that the documents, affidavits, depositions and other evidence in the record reveal that there is no evidence sufficient to create a jury issue on at least one essential element of plaintiff’s case. If there is no evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue as to any essential element of plaintiff’s claim, that claim tumbles like a house of cards. All of the other disputes of fact are rendered immaterial.1 Viewed most favorably to the Jarrells, the evidence shows that on October 23, 2003, Jarrell, who had returned to work at BellSouth Technologies approximately one week earlier after having lower back surgery, was directed to Spalding Gate Development to perform an audit of work previously completed by vendors hired by BellSouth. Those vendors were paid to mark and identify buried telephone utility cables on the residential property construction site. Jarrell was accompanied by another BellSouth employee, whom Jarrell was training on the day in question. According to Jarrell, when they arrived at the property, they walked along the front of the property on pavement, then left the pavement, walking on wheat straw, to go around the back of the building. When asked if the wheat grass was level, Jarrell replied, “it was as level . . . as you could possibly get for what construction people call a rough grade,” then agreed that the wheat straw was fairly flat. As Jarrell walked around the building, he noticed that some spots of wheat grass were unusually thick, but he continued to walk through it. Jarrell testified that he stepped into a hole that he opined was concealed by wheat straw. Jarrell did not move the pine straw to determine the size of the hole nor did he report his injury to anyone on the job site. Jarrell left the job site, without having completed the assignment, and reported the incident to BellSouth.
On cross examination, Jarrell acknowledged that wheat straw is typically used on construction sites for erosion control; that digging occurs when utility cables are located and that as a standard practice in his job, he keeps a lookout for holes on construction sites; that he was aware that there were more risks on a construction site as opposed to a completed development; that he had encountered wheat straw on hundreds of jobs as a BellSouth employee; and that approximately four inches of wheat straw covered the hole where he fell. Jarrell testified that he did not know whether the hole was man-made or naturally occurring but thought that it was man-made even though he acknowledged that he had no evidence that it was.
