A ten year old was injured by a landscape timber spike protruding from a railroad crosstie while trespassing at an apartment complex owned by Bailey Brothers Realty, Inc. Her father brought this action on her behalf against Bailey Brothers, alleging premises liability and attractive nuisance claims. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Bailey Brothers. On appeal, the father contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because 1 Bailey Brothers spoliated evidence by hammering down protruding spikes and clearing brush from the area where the injury occurred; 2 there was evidence that the injured child was an anticipated trespasser and that Bailey Brothers breached its duty to protect her from hidden perils; and 3 there was evidence that the parking lot and the railroad crossties that surrounded it constituted an attractive nuisance. For the following reasons, we affirm. To prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law. A defendant may do this by showing the court that the documents, affidavits, depositions and other evidence in the record reveal that there is no evidence sufficient to create a jury issue on at least one essential element of plaintiff’s case. If there is no evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue as to any essential element of plaintiff’s claim, that claim tumbles like a house of cards. All of the other disputes of fact are rendered immaterial. Citations and emphasis omitted. Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins , 261 Ga. 491 405 SE2d 474 1991. Furthermore, “a grant of summary judgment must be affirmed if right for any reason, whether stated or unstated. It is the grant itself that is to be reviewed for error, and not the analysis employed.” Citation and punctuation omitted. Gilbert v. City of Jackson , 287 Ga. App. 326, 327 1 651 SE2d 461 2007. Viewed in this manner, the record showed that C. B., who was ten years old at the time, was playing with three other children in the empty parking lot of an apartment complex owned by Bailey Brothers. None of the children were tenants of the apartment complex, and none of them had been invited or given permission to be on the property. Nor was Bailey Brothers aware that the children were playing at the complex.
The grounds of the apartment complex included a low retaining wall composed of railroad crossties. The crossties were in a grassy area that surrounded the parking lot. Some of the crossties had deteriorated, were covered with vegetation, and had landscape timber spikes protruding from them. The parties presented conflicting evidence over whether Bailey Brothers was aware of the protruding spikes prior to the accident at issue in this case. The evidence is uncontroverted, however, that the retaining wall was not intended for pedestrian traffic and that there was a separate walkway available for social guests to travel to and from the apartments.
