PREMISES LIABILITY CASE LAW
Peachstate Concessionaires Inc. v. Bryant, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 560, *1
Key Legal Holdings
- When a cashier was stabbed by a customer who was upset about her customer service, the assault arose out of her employment because it was connected to her job performance, and there was no evidence the attack was personal, as the two had never previously met. Therefore, the employee’s premises liability claims against her employer were barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act.
Material Facts
- Bryant worked as a cashier at a Dunkin’ Donuts owned by Peachstate.
- On December 5, 2020, Goolsby, whom Bryant had never met, complained about her rudeness during a drive-through interaction.
- When Goolsby returned to the store and asked for the manager, Bryant told him he would have to wait.
- Goolsby put his fingers in Bryant’s face, leading to a confrontation where he stabbed her in the arm.
- Bryant filed suit against Peachstate for premises liability on November 30, 2022.
Controlling Law
- OCGA § 34-9-11(a) – The exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act, which states that the rights and remedies granted to an employee under the Act exclude all other rights and remedies of such employee on account of such injury.
Court Rationale
The Court of Appeals reasoned that Bryant’s injuries arose out of her employment because the assault was connected to her job performance as a cashier. The court cited precedent cases (DeKalb Collision Center v. Foster, Heard v. Mitchell’s Formal Wear, etc.) where employees assaulted by customers or coworkers had their tort claims barred because the assaults arose from work-related disputes rather than personal reasons. The court emphasized that there was no evidence the attack was personal, as Bryant and Goolsby had never met before, and Bryant would not have been assaulted but for her interaction with Goolsby in her capacity as a Dunkin’ Donuts employee.
Procedural Outcome
The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s partial denial of summary judgment and remanded with direction to enter summary judgment in Peachstate’s favor on Bryant’s premises liability claims.
Willis v. Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Inc., 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 555, *1
Key Legal Holdings
- Where Willis testified that her pre-existing knee problems had resolved before her fall at CHOA and then immediately recurred after the fall, expert testimony was not required to establish causation, and the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on this basis.
- Because Willis testified that her torn meniscus from a 2018 car accident had healed before her February 2019 fall at CHOA, and she experienced immediate pain and limitations after the fall, jurors were capable of determining whether her post-fall damages resulted from the fall without expert testimony.
Material Facts
- Willis slipped and fell on a wet floor in CHOA’s emergency room hallway on February 7, 2019.
- No warning signs were present, but Willis felt wetness after falling and saw someone cleaning the floor.
- Willis felt a ‘snap or pop’ in her left knee upon falling, with immediate pain and swelling.
- Willis had previously suffered a torn meniscus in her left knee from a 2018 car accident.
- Willis testified she had fully recovered from her previous injury before the fall, had been released from care, and was no longer on medication.
- After the fall, Willis experienced severe pain for months, had difficulty walking and navigating stairs, and had to reduce her work hours as a hairstylist.
Controlling Law
- OCGA § 9-11-56(c) – Summary judgment standard.
- Cowart v. Widener, 287 Ga. 622 (2010) – Expert testimony is not required to prove causation in simple negligence cases unless a ‘medical question’ involving specialized knowledge is needed.
- Hutcheson v. Daniels, 224 Ga. App. 560 (1997) – When problems from a pre-existing injury cease then reoccur after an incident, expert testimony is not needed for a jury to find the incident aggravated the pre-existing condition.
Court Rationale
The Court of Appeals reasoned that although Willis had a pre-existing torn meniscus from a 2018 car accident, she testified that those problems had completely resolved before her fall at CHOA. She had been released from medical care, was no longer on medication, and could engage in normal activities. When she fell at CHOA, she immediately experienced pain that became severe and impacted her mobility. Under these circumstances, the court held that jurors are capable of determining whether Willis’s post-fall damages resulted from the fall without expert testimony, making summary judgment inappropriate.
Procedural Outcome
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to CHOA.