The Court of Appeals of Georgia has sided with John Welch Jr., the owner of a gun and pawn shop, in a premises liability case brought by Bobby Ray Stevens and Kelli Mayfield, the executor of the estate of Olivia Stevens. The case stemmed from an accident where Stevens’ vehicle plunged into a creek after driving off a bridge on the property.
The Accident and the Lawsuit
In 2021, Bobby Ray Stevens and his wife, Olivia, were driving near John’s Gun and Pawn (“the Store”) when they decided to stop and inquire about buying firewood. To reach the store, they had to drive across an unpaved bridge over a creek. On the first trip, Stevens crossed the bridge without incident. A “little later,” they returned, and as Stevens was driving across the bridge again, his right front tire went over the edge, causing his Jeep Wrangler to fall into the creek, resulting in injuries to Stevens and the death of his wife.
The Stevenses filed a lawsuit against Welch, alleging he was negligent in maintaining the property, specifically by failing to install a guardrail or warning markers along the drop-off.
The Trial Court’s Decision
The trial court granted summary judgment to Welch, meaning the court found there was no genuine dispute of material fact and Welch was entitled to win the case as a matter of law. The court reasoned that Stevens had safely crossed the bridge before, the drop-off was an open and obvious hazard, and Stevens had equal knowledge of the danger.
The Appeal and the Court of Appeals’ Ruling
The Stevenses appealed the trial court’s decision, arguing the court made several errors. They contended the trial court:
* Misconstrued Stevens’ testimony.
* The evidence didn’t show Stevens observed the specific hazard.
* The drop-off wasn’t open and obvious.
* The drop-off was not a static condition.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling, agreeing that Welch was entitled to summary judgment. The court applied the “prior traversal rule,” a legal principle in Georgia that says if someone safely navigated a potential hazard before, they are presumed to have equal knowledge of it and can’t recover damages for a subsequent injury.
The court noted that Stevens had driven over the bridge without issue on a previous visit. The court found the drop-off into the creek was an open and obvious static condition. The court also pointed out that Stevens’ testimony did not dispute the clear visibility of the drop-off, as depicted in the photographs taken at the scene.
The court rejected the Stevenses’ arguments. It found that even if Stevens’ testimony was vague about exactly where his tire went over the edge, he was aware of the risk of driving into the creek, and there was no evidence of any material change in the terrain between his two visits. The court also dismissed the argument that leaves or other debris concealed the drop-off, noting that the Stevenses failed to provide evidence of this, as the photos showed a clear view of the bridge and the drop-off.
Ultimately, the court determined that the trial court correctly applied the prior traversal rule and granted summary judgment to Welch.