Georgia case law and legal news
Edited By George Washington

The Atlanta Gleaner.

December 29, 2022.

 Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth. v. Brown, 2022 WL 17422403, Georgia Court of Appeals, December, 6, 2022
#personal injury #MARTA #slip and fall
Marta passenger Norman Brown brought a negligence action seeking damages for injuries sustained by falling down on the train when it allegedly began to move too quickly after doors closed and before he could take a seat. The trial court denied Marta’s motion for summary judgment. Marta brought the following interlocutory appeal. REVERSED.

Held:

1. transit authority had no duty to give passengers a reasonable time to find a seat before train departed the station;

2. transit authority was not liable for negligent operation of the train; and

3. transit authority was not negligent per se.

MARTA's acting chief engineer of reliability and rail car rehabilitation testified by affidavit in support of MARTA's motion for summary judgment —

  • there were no incident reports or work orders for those cars on the date of accident.

  • “the train Mr. Brown was on departed from the Georgia State station westbound and no abnormal acceleration was reported leaving the platform from zero speed.” He stated that “[t]he maximum acceleration rate achievable on MARTA railcars is 3.2 miles per hour per second +/-5%; MARTA [railcar] acceleration rates are software limited to 3.0 miles per hour per second +/-5%; this rate is within general industry standards.”

  • all MARTA railcars’ jerk limits are programmed to 2.0 miles per hour per second +/-0.2 miles per hour per second. Adjustments are hardcoded at MARTA and only possible using a laptop computer interface with password security by the manufacturer. The jerk limits prevent “excessive acceleration rate changes (i.e., any unusual and unnecessary jerking).”

GoldOller Mgmt. Servs., LLC v. Smith, 2022 WL 17973563, Georgia Court of Appeals, December 28, 2022
#personal injury #dog bite #apartment complex
Kristian Smith brought a negligence action for injuries sustained in January 2020 when he tried to escape from a dog at the apartment complex managed by defendants. Summary judgment for the defendant was denied. Defendant argued on appeal the trial court erred as to whether they were on notice of the allegedly vicious propensity of the dog such that the January 2020 incident was reasonably foreseeable. REVERSED.

Smith relied on the two prior incidents documented in a December 1 email to the apartment complex describing the dog barking and attempting to charge him, which occurred about a month before Smith was injured. The Court held even assuming the prior incidents were sufficient to create an issue of material fact as to the dog's propensity to chase people (see Green v. Wilson, 773 S.E.2d 872 (2015)), the undisputed evidence demonstrates that Smith's knowledge of this hazard was equal to or greater than that of defendants.

Further, Smith did not give the apartment complex enough notice. In his email, Smith only provided a vague description of the dog owner (Carmella Michaels) and her dog. The record showed as a result the apartment complex was aware an older woman was walking a large dog on the complex property, and that while standing some distance from Smith, the dog had barked and pulled at his leash toward him twice. This was not enough to create a jury question as to superior knowledge of the dog's vicious propensity.