Buce v. Fudge

Elizabeth Fudge brought this premises liability action seeking damages for personal injuries she sustained while at the home of Patricia Buce. Following the trial court’s denial of Buce’s motion for summary judgment, this court granted her application for interlocutory appeal. We hold that the trial court erred in denying Buce’s motion for summary judgment, and we therefore reverse. “We conduct a de novo review of the evidence in an appeal from a ruling on summary judgment. A party is entitled to summary judgment only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and judgment as a matter of law is warranted.” Citations and footnotes omitted. Suggs v. Hale , 278 Ga. App. 358 629 SE2d 11 2006. The facts are undisputed here. Patricia Buce allowed her friends, Gaye and Roger Flynt, to stay at her home while she was out of town. The Flynts invited their friend Elizabeth Fudge to Buce’s home for lunch one afternoon. While at the home, Fudge leaned against a brick guard wall at the end of the carport. Fudge was injured when the wall collapsed, causing her to fall onto a flight of exterior wooden stairs. Buce was not aware that Fudge was on her property at the time of the incident. Buce was, however, aware that some bricks were loose to the left of the section of guard wall where Fudge fell and did not warn the Flynts.

Citing Bartlett v. Maffett , 247 Ga. App. 749 545 SE2d 329 2001, Buce argues that she had no duty to Fudge because she was unaware of Fudge’s presence on the premises. Buce argues further that Fudge was a licensee,1 and that she therefore would only be liable to Fudge for wilful and wanton conduct because there is no evidence that the defective wall was a mantrap or a pitfall.