Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 253 Ga. App. 533 - Hansen v. Cooper

253 Ga. App. 533 - Hansen v. Cooper’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
January 2012
most recently cited

11 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 158 Ga. App. 166 - Pound v. Augusta National, Inc. · 231 Ga. App. 802 - Maddox v. Southern Engineering Co. · 234 Ga. App. 392 - Hannah v. Hampton Auto Parts, Inc. · 203 Ga. App. 184 - Barksdale v. Nuwar · 225 Ga. App. 212 - Hallberg v. Flat Creek Animal Clinic, P. C.

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““(A)n owner or occupier of land is liable in damages to invitees who come upon the land for injuries occasioned by his failure to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises safe.” Murphy v. Blue Bird Body Co., 207 Ga. App. 853, 857 (3) ( 429 SE2d 530 ) (1993); OCGA § 51-3-1. As a result, the [Burnhams] owed [Ballard] a duty of reasonable care. In premises liability cases, proof of falling or slipping, without more, does not give rise to liability on the part of the property owner. Hallberg v. Flat Creek Animal Clinic, 225 Ga. App. 212, 215 (2) ( 483 SE2d 671 ) (1997). Instead, a plaintiff may recover only if the property owner had knowledge of the condition and the plaintiff did not know about it. Hannah v. Hampton Auto Parts, 234 Ga. App. 392, 394 ( 506 SE2d 910 ) (1998). The true ground of liability is the defendant’s superior knowledge about the existence of a condition that may subject the invitee to an unreasonable risk of injury. Pound v. Augusta Nat., 158 Ga. App. 166, 167-168 ( 279 SE2d 342 ) (1981). To fulfill the duty to inspect premises to keep them safe from defects including hidden defects, the law requires only the exercise of ordinary care, not extraordinary care. Armenise v. Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, 219 Ga. App. 591, 593 ( 466 SE2d 58 ) (1995).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “that there is no evidence sufficient to create a jury issue on at least one essential element of [James’] case. If there is no evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue as to any essential element of [James’] claim, that claim tumbles like a house of cards. All of the other disputes of fact are rendered immaterial. 1”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.