Watch Where You DRIVE – Every Time

Georgia Court of Appeals Affirms Summary Judgment in Stevens v. Welch (Oct. 17, 2025)

Date: October 17, 2025 Court: Georgia Court of Appeals Case: Stevens et al. v. Welch et al., A25A0778

Facts

Bobby Stevens and his wife Olivia drove onto the property of John's Gun and Pawn to check out some firewood the store advertised along Highway 441. To get to the store, customers had to drive across an unpaved, single-lane earthen bridge above a creek. On an earlier trip, Bobby had crossed this same bridge without any trouble. During a later visit, he drove across the bridge again. As he moved forward to look at the firewood, his right front tire went over the unguarded edge of the drop-off. His Jeep fell into the creek and flipped upside down. Bobby was injured, and sadly, his wife was killed.

The Stevenses sued, arguing the property owners should have installed guardrails or warnings along the drop-off. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants—saying the hazard was "open and obvious" and Bobby had equal knowledge because he had safely crossed the same bridge before. The Stevenses appealed.

Holding

The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. The key principle: Georgia's "prior traversal rule." The rule says: If a visitor successfully navigated a hazard before, the law presumes he knows about it. If the hazard is open and obvious and hasn't changed, the property owner is not liable. Here, the Court found:

• Bobby had safely driven across the bridge on a prior visit.
• He admitted the bridge looked the same both times.
• Photos showed the drop-off was clearly visible, with no foliage or debris hiding the edge.
• Nothing obstructed his ability to see the hazard.
• Any distraction (like looking at firewood) was "self-induced." Therefore: Bobby had equal knowledge of the hazard → no liability for the property owner → summary judgment affirmed.

Questions & Comments

1. Is the prior traversal rule harsh? Many plaintiffs think so—especially when the first traversal didn't involve any close call. But Georgia courts apply it strictly.
2. Would this case come out differently if something had changed? Possibly. Evidence of new foliage, erosion, or hidden edges could defeat the "static condition" requirement.
3. Does the lack of guardrails matter? Not if the danger is open and obvious and the plaintiff had equal knowledge.
4. Takeaway for lawyers: In premises cases involving repeated visits, the plaintiff's own prior traversal is often outcome-determinative.