Strauss v. City of Lilburn

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• distinguishing Orff on the ground that the plaintiff had previously traversed the same hazard and had “admitted that she was not paying attention at the time of the fall”
• reversing a grant of summary judgment to defendant owner when there was \no evidence\ that the plaintiff \had actually walked either up or down\ the single step at any time prior to her fall
• reversing summary judgment for defendant where “the evidence shows that, although [plaintiff] was paying attention to where she was walking, she was unable to see the step down because the change in elevation was essentially camouflaged from her vantage point”
• genuine issue of material fact existed where plaintiff did not see a step and the “change in elevation was essentially camouflaged”
• whether plaintiff “had greater or equal knowledge of the specific hazard” that allegedly caused her fall was a question of fact to be decided at trial
• where no dispute that City knew of static condition defect of single step riser, the fact that there had never been a prior fall did not rebut presumption of knowledge

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).