Analysis of Chamblee V Grayco Inc - Case Study Example

? CHAMBLEE v. GRAYCO, INC. Issues The main issue highlighted in this case illustrates that plaintiff’s claim for negligence under the tort law does not directly justify the liabilities of the landlord under the provisions of tort law in the case of Chamblee v. Grayco Inc. As noted in the case, Chamblee (the plaintiff) had to suffer from severe damages after falling onto a drainage pipe which was partially exposed beside the sidewalk of the rented apartment. Following the injury, the plaintiff accused the defendant (Grayco Inc.) of being negligent and filed a lawsuit under the premise liability law (Meiners, Ringleb & Edwards, 2008). Rules Premise liability is concerned with the claims of one party (the tenant) against another party (the owner) on the ground of getting injured in the property. It has been noted that in such cases the injured person can claim against the owner or the controller or the occupier of the property as per the tort law. Consequently, the owner, the controller or the occupier of the property, whoever is responsible to maintain the property, will possess the same liability under the premise liability law. In this case, the law of Georgia will be taken into concern. According to the section 51-3-1 of the Georgia premise liability law, an owner or occupier or controller of any property is liable to perform the duty for keeping the premise safe and free from any sort of physical danger for the people who visit the place. However, this section of the law also states that the occupier or the owner of the property is not an insurer of the safety of the people visiting the property. Furthermore, the invitee or the visitor should also take some extra care so that he/she can avoid unreasonable injuries or harm as mentioned under section 51–11–7 of the premise liability law of Georgia. Furthermore, according to the tort law followed in Georgia, the landlord or property owner is not required to ensure that every route across the property is safe for invitee or the tenant (Justia, 2010; Justia, 2010). Analysis With reference to the appellant case of Chamblee v. Grayco, Inc., it can be observed that plaintiff and tenant Elizabeth Chamblee sued Grayco, Inc, the owner on the grounds of premise liability. The plaintiff (i.e. Chamblee) reported to have fallen down onto a drainage pipe being partially exposed, when walking through the sidewalk of the apartment. This resulted in serious injuries to the plaintiff, following which she sued the defendant (i.e. the landlord) on the ground that the premise was not safe and it was clearly a case of negligence. As per the plaintiff’s complaints, the owner of the property, i.e. Grayco had not paid adequate attention towards the duty of ensuring a safe premise for the tenants of visitors of the property. On presenting the case to the court, the evidences revealed that Chamblee was entirely responsible for the change in route and also for her damages. Hence, the court’s decision affirmed that Chamblee had not been responsible enough to avoid the accident. The normal route that she uses to take every day was safe enough. Therefore, the responsibility of the landlord is justified by this aspect. Further evidences suggest that Chamblee took that route owing to certain personal reasons which was irrelevant for the case. According to section 51–11–7 of premise law of Georgia, invitees or tenants will be entirely responsible for any sort of injury caused due to their conduct under the similar circumstances as witnessed in the case of Chamblee v. Grayco, Inc. Furthermore, the law also suggests that invitee(s) will need to be careful about their own well being when entering a property. Contextually, the responsibility of the resident(s) or the owner(s) in maintaining a safe pathway is confined to the regular entrance and exit points. Apparently, this aspect does not support Chamblee in this case. A similar scenario can be illustrated with reference to the case of Bartlett v. Mcdonough Bedding Company. Furthermore, analysis of evidences depicted that the route was taken up voluntarily by Chamblee which makes her responsible to be more careful in avoiding accidents (Findlaw, 2013). Therefore, liability claims against the owner, i.e. Grayco can be deemed as minimum or completely void in this case. The stand of the Chamblee that the landlord was careless in maintaining the property can further be argued in accordance to the premise liability law of Georgia. According to the legal provision applicable in this case, the landlord or property owner(s) will not be responsible for the safety of each and every route of the property. In other words, the owner(s) will be responsible for the safety of only the basic routes. These criteria of law entirely support Grayco because apparently the daily route of Chamblee was safe and well managed. This in turn makes the entire case concentrated on the voluntary route change of Chamblee irrespective of her reason to do so. Similar aspects can be apparently witnessed in the cases like Williams v. Park Walk Apartments and Lowery’s Tavern v. Dudukovich, where the plaintiff was hurt as a consequence of their intentional change of normal safe route to an irregular unsafe route (Findlaw, 2013). Finally, after evaluating all the evidences related to the case, there are certain grounds that can be reached on the basis of which the verdict can be put together. On the onset, the route taken by Chamblee or plaintiff was not the one that she usually takes for her daily activities. Thus, it was clear that she was entirely responsible for the switch over of the route. In this context, she cannot justify her stand about the carelessness of the defendant or the landlord. It is because, the law of Georgia says that the owner of a property is not required to ensure that all the routes or corners of the property should be safe for the tenant(s) of the visitor(s). Secondly, since she was aware of the fact that the route she is taking was not safe, she should was responsible for being more careful about her own well being in choosing the same. In this regard, the law of Georgia clearly mentions that the invitees should be more careful and responsible for their well being in others premise. In this context too Chamblee’s stand is not justified. Moreover, evidences affirmed that the landlord was responsible enough to ensure that the normal route or path of the property was safe for people to move around which again coincides with the law of Georgia regarding premise liability under section 51–11–7 (Justia, 2010). Conclusion From the overall analysis it has been noted that the entire case is concentrated on the aspect that the switch over of the route by the plaintiff was her conscious decision owing to which, she is the only one who is responsible for the outcome of the same. Evidences depict that the responsibility of the landlord regarding the safety of the property cannot be questioned according to law related to premise liability. Hence, the plaintiff’s claim is deemed as void. With reference to the analysis, it can be concluded that the decision of the court was justified. It might be evident that the decision of Chamblee in changing the usual route to reach the car parking was taken due to certain unavoidable circumstances but the law of Georgia does not support that stand of her considering it to be irrelevant to justify the liabilities of Grayco either directly or indirectly. Therefore, the verdict illustrated that the Grayco had no liability in the injuries suffered by Chamblee in the property. References Findlaw. (2013). WILLIAMS et al. v. PARK WALK APARTMENTS, L.P. et al. Retrieved from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ga-court-of-appeals/1331835.html Findlaw. (2013). BARTLETT et al. v. McDONOUGH BEDDING COMPANY. Retrieved from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ga-court-of-appeals/1592199.html Justia. (2010). Chapter 3 - liability of owners and occupiers. Retrieved from http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-51/chapter-3/article-1/51-3-1/ Justia. (2010). Chapter 11 - defenses to tort actions. Retrieved from http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-51/chapter-11/article-1/51-11-7/ Meiners, R. E., Ringleb, A. H., & Edwards, F. L. (2008). The legal environment of business. United States: Cengage Learning. Appendix The Case of CHAMBLEE v. GRAYCO, INC. Read More