GENERAL LIABILITY CASE LAW UPDATE
Philip v. Pollock, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 511, *1
Key Legal Holdings
- Evidence that Timothy Pollock kept Double Cross caged alone except for training sessions where the dog was taught to latch onto and pull a suspended rope, that another similarly-trained dog had bitten people, and that a social media post described Double Cross as ‘Weaponized’ created genuine issues of material fact as to whether Timothy Pollock knew of the dog’s vicious propensity, precluding summary judgment.
- Cobb County Ordinance Sec. 10-11(a)(2)a, requiring dogs on the owner’s premises to be kept indoors, in a primary enclosure, or on a leash, qualifies as the type of leash ordinance contemplated by OCGA § 51-2-7, and evidence that Double Cross was not leashed at the time of the attack created a triable issue precluding summary judgment.
Material Facts
- Timothy Pollock owned eight American Bully dogs kept at a house where his son Camron lived with Sarah Garrison.
- Timothy paid Garrison to help care for the dogs (60% Garrison, 40% Timothy).
- On March 20, 2021, Philip and his cousin went to the house to pick up Camron.
- Garrison let all dogs out of their cages while Philip waited outside.
- Double Cross, a 90-pound dog, bit Philip’s arm, latched on, shook its head, and dragged Philip to the ground.
- Double Cross was kept caged alone except for about one hour daily.
- Timothy trained Double Cross to latch onto and pull a suspended rope.
- A social media post two days before the attack described Double Cross as ‘Weaponized.’.
Controlling Law
- OCGA § 51-2-7 (liability for injuries caused by vicious or dangerous animals); Cobb County Ordinance Sec. 10-11(a)(2)a (requiring dogs on owner’s premises to be kept indoors, in a primary enclosure, or on a leash); S&S Towing & Recovery v. Charnota, 309 Ga. 117 (2020) (interpreting OCGA § 51-2-7); Steagald v. Eason, 300 Ga. 717 (2017) (explaining ‘first bite rule’).
Court Rationale
The Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in two ways: First, by disregarding evidence from which a trier of fact could find Timothy Pollock had reason to know of Double Cross’s dangerous propensity, including evidence of specific training methods and social media descriptions. Second, by incorrectly concluding that the Cobb County ordinance cited by Philip was not the type of leash ordinance contemplated by OCGA § 51-2-7, when its plain language clearly required dogs to be leashed under the circumstances.
Procedural Outcome
The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment to Camron Pollock on all claims. The court reversed the grant of summary judgment to Timothy Pollock and Garrison on the OCGA § 51-2-7 claim and on the derivative claim for punitive damages. The court affirmed summary judgment on the attorney fees claim.
Wells v. Khan Shell, LLC, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 552, *1
Key Legal Holdings
- Where a plaintiff trips on open and obvious imperfections in a gas station parking lot that were ‘readily observable’ when looking, and admits she was not paying attention and not looking down when she fell, the plaintiff is deemed to have equal knowledge of the hazard and cannot recover for her injuries.
- When a plaintiff trips on concrete imperfections in a gas station parking lot that were visible on a sunny day with no visual obstructions, and the plaintiff admits she simply wasn’t looking down, summary judgment for the defendant is appropriate because the hazard was open and obvious.
Material Facts
- Wells tripped and fell in Khan Shell’s parking lot on January 5, 2021.
- Wells was walking back to her car after speaking with friends when she fell.
- Wells claimed her foot went into a hole or caught on an uneven concrete seam.
- The concrete imperfections were ‘readily observable’ once Wells was looking.
- Wells admitted she ‘wasn’t paying attention’ and ‘wasn’t looking down’ when she fell.
- The weather was sunny, and nothing obstructed Wells’ vision.
Controlling Law
- OCGA § 51-3-1 establishes premises liability when an owner fails to exercise ordinary care in keeping premises safe. Georgia case law establishes that a plaintiff cannot recover if their knowledge of a hazard equals or exceeds the defendant’s. For static conditions (like broken or uneven pavement) that are open and obvious, an invitee is deemed to have equal knowledge and cannot recover for injuries caused by failing to see the condition.
Court Rationale
The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment because the imperfections in Khan Shell’s parking lot were open and obvious static conditions. Since nothing obstructed Wells’ view, Khan Shell could assume she would see the condition and realize any associated risks. Wells’ failure to look down while walking did not relieve her from responsibility. The court distinguished this case from others where hazards were obscured, difficult to discern, or where the plaintiff’s view was obstructed.
Procedural Outcome
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Khan Shell, LLC.