This appeal arises from a personal injury suit filed by Shelanda Thomas against Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority “MARTA” and Schindler Elevator Corporation “Schindler”. The trial court granted summary judgment to MARTA and Schindler, and Thomas appeals. For the reasons stated below, we reverse. Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.1 So viewed, the evidence shows that Thomas was injured during an escalator malfunction at the Five Points MARTA Station on November 29, 2006. Thomas deposed that the escalator was off when she arrived at the station, but a MARTA employee turned it on so that she could ride it. As Thomas rode up the escalator and neared the top, the escalator suddenly jerked and stopped abruptly. Thomas hurried up the remaining few steps and laughed as she looked behind her to see if everyone was okay. Thomas then noticed a pain in her right knee, so she reported the incident to a MARTA police officer. However, Thomas refused the offer from a MARTA employee to call an ambulance for her injury. In her complaint, Thomas alleged that MARTA and Schindler failed to keep the premises in a safe condition and knew or should have known that the escalator was not functioning properly. Thomas contended that the Appellees were negligent in inspecting, repairing, and maintaining the escalator.
The Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment, attaching the deposition of Joseph Hobby, the on-call mechanic on the evening of November 29, 2006. Hobby testified that he remembered the service call from the date in question, and he was aware the person was injured. Hobby testified that based on his visual inspection of the escalator just after the incident, the “unit wrecked at the top end of stair, with three broken steps, and one bent axle. . . .” Hobby did not repair the unit that evening, and left it for regular work hours the next day. Hobby explained that he deduced there was a bent axle because “they’ll have a large gap between one step to another . . . Typically, usually it’s a . . . bent axle.” He also explained that he saw “signs of cracking in the step from being pushed against each other or pushed against the floor plate at the top end.”
