 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Theesfeld v. Image Electrolysis & Skin Care6/24/2005
oll across the tile floor. Theesfeld testified that, when she sat on the front edge of the stool, the stool rolled backwards out from under her and she fell to the floor. According to Theesfeld, the stool was unsafe because it had wheels and it was located on a slippery tile floor. But Theesfeld admitted in her deposition that she sat on the stool in the pedicure room on numerous occasions prior to the fall and was aware of the alleged unsafe condition.
Q: You were in there more than anybody?
A: Right, yes.
Q: If anybody knew the condition of the floor in combination with the wheels of that [stool], you knew that situation?
A: Yes.
Q: So you were fully aware before your accident happened that in your opinion, there was a problem with the floor and the chair?
A: Yes.
Assuming the combination of the wheeled stool on the tile floor was an unsafe condition on the premises of which Image Spa had actual or constructive knowledge, the record shows that Theesfeld had knowledge of the condition at least equal to the knowledge of Image Spa. In order to impose liability on Image Spa for injury to Theesfeld as an independent contractor business invitee, Theesfeld had the burden of showing that Image Spa had superior knowledge of the alleged unsafe condition on the premises. McFadden Business Publications, Inc. v. Guidry, 177 Ga. App. 885, 886-887 (341 SE2d 294) (1986); Gantt v. Dave & Busters of Ga., Inc., 271 Ga. App. 457, 458 (610 SE2d 116) (2005). Because Theesfeld failed to produce any evidence that Image Spa had superior knowledge of the alleged unsafe condition, we affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of Image Spa. Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (405 SE2d 474) (1991).
Judgment affirmed. Phipps and Mikell, JJ., concur.
|