Somers v. M.A.U. Inc.

In this slip-and-fall action, the three plaintiffs Stacy Somers, her husband, and her bankruptcy trustee appeal the summary judgment awarded to defendants M.A.U., Inc. and Pedro Giraldo owners of a restaurant franchise, arguing that some facts showed that the restaurant’s employees had constructive knowledge of the foreign substance that caused Somers to fall. Because some evidence showed that three of those employees were in the immediate vicinity of the accident and could have easily seen and removed the hazard, the evidence created an issue of fact as to the constructive knowledge of the defendants, which requires us to reverse the judgment below. Summary judgment is only proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 c. 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. Matjoulis v. Integon Gen. Ins. Corp .1

So viewed, the evidence shows that in July 2002, Somers, who managed a clothing store, entered the neighboring restaurant franchise owned by defendants and went directly to the cashier to order some food and to obtain change for a large bill. As Somers was leaving the counter, she turned to exit the restaurant and, within seven feet of the cashier and of another employee at the counter, slipped on a softball-sized four-to-five inch diameter accumulation of sticky liquid on the floor, causing her to fall and injure her left knee. A third employee at an even closer pastry counter was only two-to-three feet away from Somers when she fell.