New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

Case No. A91A2125

by: Varsha Mandiga

Case No. A91A2125 BUSA 2106

Varsha Mandiga
GPA 4.0

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

Case Briefs
Legal Environment Of Business
Class Notes
BUSA, 2106, GSU, Ryan
25 ?




Popular in Legal Environment Of Business

Popular in Department

This 2 page Class Notes was uploaded by Varsha Mandiga on Thursday March 10, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to BUSA 2106 at Georgia State University taught by Grelecki in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 23 views.


Reviews for Case No. A91A2125


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 03/10/16
Varsha Mandiga HARPE v. SHONEY'S, INC. FACTS Case No. A91A2125. When: Decided March 5, 1992.       Reconsideration Denied March 30, 1992. Where: Court of Appeals of Georgia. Who: Appellant – John G. Hunter.     Appellees – Adams, Gardner & Ellis, George L. Lewis.     SOGNIER, Judge.  What: Evelyn H. Harpe brought suit against Shoney's Inc. d/b/a Captain D's Fish & Chips, to recover             damages for injuries incurred when she slipped and fell on a ramp at a Captain D's restaurant.              The trial court granted Shoney's motion for summary judgment and Harpe appeals. ISSUE(S)  The record contains excerpts from the deposition of appellant's expert, Ben Ritzert, an  architect, in which he stated his opinion that the ramp in issue did not meet the applicable  Savannah building code in several respects, particularly in that it lacked handrails. Haroon  Nasrullah, an employee of the Savannah Building Inspection Department, are also in the  record. Nasrullah testified at deposition that this particular ramp is classified as a curb ramp,  which does not require handrails.  Appellant's husband testified that he did not even see whether she actually slipped on the  ramp since "it happened so fast." Accordingly, because in response to appellee's motion  appellant failed to show a causal relation between appellee's alleged negligence per se and her injury but instead admitted she did not *594 know what caused the fall, even assuming  appellee was negligent per se in maintaining the ramp, the trial court did not err by granting  summary judgment to appellee.  RULE(S)  To establish a claim based on negligence, four elements must be shown:  o (1) a legal duty;  o (2) a breach thereof; o (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the breach of duty and the  resulting injury; and  o (4) damage to the injured party's legally protected interest. ANAYLSIS   The court need not address appellee's concerns in regard to the Ritzert deposition because  even assuming the record establishes that appellee was negligent per se in maintaining a ramp which did not meet building code *593 specifications, or that a genuine issue of fact exists  whether appellee was negligent in maintaining a defective and unsafe ramp, summary  judgment was properly granted to appellee.  Viewing the evidence in terms of a recovery under common law negligence, we find that  summary judgment was properly granted to appellee. "Proof of a fall, without more, does not  give rise to liability on the part of a proprietor. There must be proof of fault on the part of the  owner and ignorance of the danger on the part of the invitee.  Assuming the ramp was defective, it was a "static condition." Id. at 501. It is uncontroverted  that upon entering the restaurant appellant had crossed the same area in which she fell while  leaving. Thus, appellant cannot show appellee's superior knowledge, which is necessary in  order for her to recover. See id. at 500­501. "When a person has successfully negotiated an  alleged dangerous condition on a previous occasion, that person is presumed to have  knowledge of it and cannot recover for a subsequent injury resulting therefrom.  In the case sub judice, appellant has failed to demonstrate such a causal relationship. The  record shows that neither appellant nor her husband had any idea what caused appellant to  fall. CONCLUSION  The reason plaintiff's feet slipped is not material to her claim. The causation question which  remains is, given that plaintiff's feet slipped due to some unknown reason, would plaintiff  have fallen and sustained her injuries if the required handrail had been present. Defendant has presented no evidence on this issue and even if it had such would be controverted by  plaintiff's opinion testimony that she would not have fallen if there had been a handrail. It  follows that since neither the causation element nor any element of plaintiff's claim has been  negated by uncontroverted evidence, summary judgment should not have been granted in  favor of defendant.  ­ Judgment affirmed. 2


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Janice Dongeun University of Washington

"I used the money I made selling my notes & study guides to pay for spring break in Olympia, Washington...which was Sweet!"

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.