despite plaintiff’s claim that optical illusion obscured view, defendant granted summary judgment where plaintiff encountered steps in plain view, under clear conditions, with no distractions
How later courts described this case
- despite plaintiff’s claim that optical illusion obscured view, defendant granted summary judgment where plaintiff encountered steps in plain view, under clear conditions, with no distractions
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
McMurray, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
In my view, the decision in the case sub judice is controlled by Whitley v. Hulon, 194 Ga. App. 363 ( 390 SE2d 598 ), therefore, I respectfully dissent. As in Whitley , the case sub judice involves allegations of a defective premises which prevented plaintiff Arne Nunnelley from accurately discerning what lay in her path. In Whitley , poor lighting caused the slope of a ramp to blend together with a parking lot. In the case sub judice, an optical illusion created by the slope of a porch caused it to appear to slope directly into the sidewalk, thus concealing the presence of a step. While plaintiff had recently traversed the path into the establishment where a colored tape provided *713 notice of the step, the path out did not afford similar warnings. Whether plaintiff exercised a reasonable lookout and whether a warning sign should have been posted are questions of fact which should be resolved by a jury. See also Pinkney v. VMS Realty, 189 Ga. App. 177 ( 375 SE2d 90 ).
Decided October 15, 1990
Rehearing denied November 26, 1990
Thomas J. Crownover, for appellants.
Long, Weinberg, Ansley & Wheeler, Stephen H. Sparwath, for appellees.
I am authorized to state that Chief Judge Carley joins in this dissent.