What Must a Shopper Prove to Succeed on a Slip and Fall Claim?

A Wal-Mart customer sued the store, alleging she was hurt when she slipped and fell due to accumulated water on the floor at the store. She asserted claims for premises liability, negligence, nuisance, and negligent training and supervision. The trial court granted summary judgment to Wal-Mart on all claims. The plaintiff appealed, challenging the grant of summary judgment to Wal-Mart on her premises liability claim.

Background

The plaintiff was shopping when she slipped and fell on water on the floor near the end of an aisle. She didn’t see any water before falling, but afterward, her clothes were wet, and she felt a liquid with her hand that she thought was water. Another shopper and a store employee saw water on the floor near her after she fell. The employee said he “noticed a small amount of water on the floor.”

The plaintiff testified that she didn’t know where the water came from but speculated that it may have come from a freezer at the end of the aisle.

The Decision of the Court of Appeals

Superior Knowledge

Presiding Judge Christpher J. McFadden of the Court of Appeals wrote that in Georgia, proof of a fall, without more, does not give rise to liability on the part of a proprietor. To support a premises liability claim, a plaintiff must show that the proprietor had superior knowledge — either actual or constructive — of the hazard that caused the plaintiff’s injury.

In assessing the relative knowledge of the parties, the question is whether they were accurately informed about the specific hazard or danger in question.

Wal-Mart pointed to the lack of evidence showing that it had either actual or constructive knowledge of the specific water hazard on the floor where the plaintiff fell.

Actual Knowledge

The plaintiff cited to an earlier decision  for the proposition that actual knowledge may be established through evidence of a pervasive hazard. She pointed to evidence that freezers at the Wal-Mart were known to leak and that spill pads used to absorb water had been placed in areas of the store other than where she fell. But her evidence didn’t demonstrate that Wal-Mart had actual knowledge of the specific water hazard that caused her fall.

The evidence cited by the plaintiff didn’t create a triable issue as to Wal-Mart’s actual knowledge of the specific hazard alleged in this case. The Court found that the plaintiff cited no evidence that spill pads had ever been placed near the freezer, that spill pads had been placed in the area where she fell on the date of the incident, or that Wal-Mart otherwise had actual knowledge of the water on which she slipped. The evidence cited by the plaintiff therefore didn’t show that Wal-Mart had actual knowledge of the specific water hazard that caused her fall.

Constructive Knowledge

Judge McFadden explained that a plaintiff may demonstrate a proprietor’s constructive knowledge of a hazard by showing:

• evidence that the hazardous condition lasted so long that it would have been discovered and removed if the proprietor had exercised reasonable care in inspecting the premises, or
• evidence that an employee of the defendant was in the immediate vicinity of the hazardous condition and could have easily seen and corrected the hazard.

As to the first method of demonstrating constructive knowledge, Wal-Mart cited affidavits and video screen shots showing that during the three-and-a-half minutes before the plaintiff’s fall, two store employees conducted separate inspections of the area. Both employees testified that there was no liquid or other hazard on the floor, which was dry, clean, and free of debris.

The plaintiff didn’t cite any contradictory evidence establishing how long water was on the floor. Instead, she speculated about whether customers opening the nearby freezer doors some 37 to 55 minutes before her fall resulted in the water she slipped on. But absent evidence showing that the water came from those doors, Judge McFadden said that summary judgment couldn’t be avoided based on mere speculation or conjecture.

The judge went on to opine that no matter the adequacy of any inspection program, when an owner shows that an inspection happened within a brief period of time prior to an invitee’s fall, the inspection procedure was adequate as a matter of law and defeats an invitee’s negligence action. Here, in light of the fact that Wal-Mart showed that inspections were conducted within a few minutes of the incident, the limited period of time that the water was on the floor was insufficient as a matter of law to hold that the store should’ve discovered and removed it before the plaintiff’s fall. As a result, the plaintiff failed to establish that Wal-Mart had constructive knowledge of the hazard under the first method.

As for the second method of showing constructive knowledge, there was evidence that two store employees were stocking shelves from large pallets of bread 15 feet from where the plaintiff fell. But the Court stated that showing that an employee was merely working in the immediate area of the alleged hazard wasn’t enough. The employee must have been in a position to have easily seen the hazard and intervened to correct it before the accident happened. Thus, the plaintiff failed to present any evidence that either employee, while busy stocking shelves, was in a position to have easily seen water on the floor near the freezer at the end of the aisle.

Because the plaintiff failed to sustain her evidentiary burden of showing that the store had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged hazard and that such knowledge exceeded hers, Wal-Mart was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. The judgment was affirmed. Drossman v. Wal-Mart Stores East, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 36 (Ga. App. February 4, 2025)

Our team of professionals

To recover damages for injuries sustained in a slip-and-fall action, an invitee must prove (1) that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard; and (2) that the plaintiff lacked knowledge of the hazard despite the exercise of ordinary care due to actions or conditions within the control of the owner/occupier.  Working with a knowledgeable Atlanta personal injury lawyer residents trust makes a big difference.  Your personal injury lawyer must understand Georgia rules of evidence and know how to effectively apply them at trial. Our law firm has extensive experience in this area, and we handle these types of cases every day. We are happy to answer your questions, and we offer free consultations to all prospective clients. Contact an Atlanta personal injury attorney at Tobin Injury Law 24 hours a day, seven days a week by calling 404-JUSTICE (404-587-8423).