Steven Gates v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC

James Merritt, Jr. (Atlanta, GA) (Premises Liability) recently obtained an order granting Summary Judgment in favor of Lowe’s on all claims in this personal injury action. The Plaintiff filed suit on a premises liability theory, claiming that he had sustained serious bilateral wrist injuries after a Lowe’s employee began using a large carpet rolling machine while the Plaintiff’s hands were still resting on the roller. The Plaintiff had undergone surgery and was claiming over $115,000 in medical bills. The parties tried to settle the case at mediation, but mediation broke down after it became clear that the Plaintiff would not consider any amount under 6-figures. We filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of Lowe’s, arguing that the Plaintiff was barred from recovering for 3 primary reasons – each of them interconnected in law and fact. First, to the extent the large carpet rolling machine was a “hazard,” then the Plaintiff had equal knowledge of it. The undisputed facts established that the Plaintiff had bought carpet before and was familiar with these types of carpet rolling machines and how they operated. Additionally, the Plaintiff was only injured after he had watched as the Lowe’s employee operated the machine 2 different times, each resulting in a cut which the Plaintiff found unsatisfactory. Finally, there was no evidence that the Lowe’s employee ever had any knowledge that the Plaintiff had put his hands onto the large roller. Second, the Plaintiff had voluntarily assumed a known risk. Lowe’s argued that, under Georgia law, a plaintiff who voluntarily exposes himself to the risk has failed to exercise ordinary care for his own safety, and therefore cannot recover from the owner. And finally, to the extent that the large carpet rolling machine was a “hazard,” it was an open and obvious static condition which could have been avoided in the exercise of ordinary care. At the hearing, the Plaintiff argued that he was not warned about the dangers of the carpet rolling machine, that there were no warning signs nearby the machine, and that this failure to warn proximately caused his claimed injuries. After considering argument from both sides, Judge Emily Brantley agreed with Lowe’s and granted Summary Judgment in Lowe’s favor and against the Plaintiff on all counts in the Complaint.