The Georgia Court of Appeals recently granted an interlocutory appeal filed by a grocery store after a trial court’s denial of its motions for summary judgment and for reconsideration, in a slip-and-fall case brought by a shopper. The store argued that the trial court erred in finding that a material question of fact existed regarding whether a defect in the premises was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s fall.
Background
The plaintiff was shopping at the store when she fell. Store surveillance video shows her walking from the far end of the store along the side of the meat refrigeration cases, then falling onto the floor. According to the time stamp on the surveillance video, she fell at approximately 11:44 a.m. Minutes later, store employees approached and began talking with her. The video shows workers pointing at the floor, and someone giving the plaintiff an ice pack. At about 12:02 p.m. on the video, the store’s manager can be seen bending down to take a photograph. He deposed that there was no water in the area at that time. Emergency workers arrived about half an hour after the plaintiff’s fall, placed her on a stretcher, and took her out of the area. The video then shows an employee again pointing at the floor, and at about 12:18 p.m., workers placed cones in the area around where the plaintiff was lying while employees look at the floor and touch or tap the floor with their feet. At about 12:19 p.m. on the video, approximately 35 minutes after the plaintiff’s fall, the store manager can be seen wiping down the area with a cloth.
The plaintiff deposed that she never saw what caused her to fall, did not know what she slipped on, and never saw any water or anything else on the floor where she fell. She also deposed, however, that “somebody said water. So there was water there.” In her affidavit, she averred that she did not see “the liquid I slipped in” and “did not notice anything else on the floor in the area I fell that could have been the cause of my fall.” The affidavit again avers that an unidentified person said water was on the floor.
The store manager, who was going to put meat back in the meat case, had very briefly walked near the area where the plaintiff fell less than a minute prior to her fall, deposed that he saw nothing on the floor: “no spill, no scratch, nothing.” He left the area, but returned when he heard the plaintiff screaming after the fall. He explained that he later began wiping down the floor because the ice pack the plaintiff had been given had leaked, creating a “spill,” and that “it wasn’t wet on the floor before.”
Looking at the video, he said that at about 11:46 a.m., about two minutes after the plaintiff’s fall, he inspected the floor and saw “nothing at all,” and that he only later wiped down the floor, after emergency workers had carried the plaintiff out, because the ice pack had leaked “five drops at the most.” He acknowledged that he wiped down an area that was between three and five feet away from the location of the ice pack because he wanted to be “cautious.” The towel, he deposed, was only “a little damp” when he picked it up after wiping down the floor.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals
The store contended that the trial court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to establish a hazardous condition existed that proximately caused her fall. The Court of Appeals agreed. Judge Ken Hodges in his opinion for the panel stated that as to premises liability actions, Georgia law makes clear that while an owner or occupier of land has a statutory duty to keep its approaches and premises in a reasonably safe condition for invitees, an owner or occupier of land isn’t an insurer of the safety of its invitees. As such, the threshold point of the Court’s inquiry in a slip-and-fall case is the existence of a hazardous condition on the premises.
Moreover, it’s well established that proof of a fall, without more, doesn’t create liability on the part of a proprietor or landowner because it’s common knowledge that people fall on the best of sidewalks and floors. Thus, when the plaintiff can’t show the existence of a hazardous condition, she cannot prove the cause of her injuries and there can be no recovery because an essential element of negligence cannot be proven.
The store argued that the plaintiff presented no evidence of a hazardous condition. The plaintiff countered by pointing to the statement from the unidentified bystander, who allegedly said “water,” then cites to her own conclusion that “there was water there.” Judge Hodges said it was clear from her deposition, however, that her conclusion was based solely on the unidentified bystander’s statement, because the plaintiff averred unequivocally that she herself “didn’t see anything” that caused her to slip and fall.
As the store argued at the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, the unidentified bystander’s statement about water is inadmissible hearsay. An alleged statement by an unidentified witness is hearsay and inadmissible. Since the alleged utterer was unknown, it can’t be shown that the statement qualified as being free from all suspicion. That’s because attempting to establish a hazard existed “only at the suggestion of a statement allegedly made by a mystery person is completely unreliable. It’s the very essence of hearsay, Judge Hodges said. The plaintiff can’t identify the person who allegedly made the statement, and she made no showing that she has ever tried to locate or identify that individual.
Nor was the Court of Appeals persuaded by the plaintiff’s assertion — made in a one-sentence footnote that contains no argument — that the bystander’s statement falls under either the present-sense impression or excited utterance exceptions to the hearsay rule. The plaintiff pointed to no evidence in the record giving such context to the unidentified person’s alleged statement.
The plaintiff also argued that evidence of a hazard existed because the video shows employees pointing at the floor and, despite the store manager’s uncontradicted deposition testimony that he didn’t see any water on the floor prior to the plaintiff’s fall or immediately after it, a fact question nonetheless exists because the store manager used a towel to wipe down the floor in an area larger than the area where her fall occurred. The plaintiff cited no evidence, however, that whatever the store manager was wiping up was on the floor prior to her fall. She merely inferred that because he wiped up a larger area, water must have been somewhere in that larger area before she fell. This inference was directly contradicted by the store manager’s testimony.
Judge Hodges explained that to recover 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 or occupier.
Here, the plaintiff can’t meet the first prong of the test because there was no evidence she slipped on a hazard. She must present some evidence of a foreign substance on the ground where she slipped, and that this substance caused her to slip. Specifically, to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of a hazardous condition, a plaintiff can’t rely upon speculation; she must prove more than the existence of a slick or wet floor.
Here, the plaintiff pointed to no evidence establishing a causal connection between any substance on the floor and her fall, and she offered no evidence — other than the fact of her fall — that the floor where she landed was slippery or somehow caused her fall. As a result, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in denying the store’s motion for summary judgment.
The judgment was reversed. All American Quality Foods, Inc. v. Britten, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 6, 2025 WL 79179 (Ga. App. January 13, 2025).
Do You have Questions About Accidents at a Store or Another Person’s Property?
If you have questions about injuries sustained in an accident on another person’s property or want to ask us any questions about your situation, you are welcome to reach out to our experienced Atlanta personal injury lawyer Atlanta residents trust. We offer free confidential consultations. You can contact an Atlanta personal injury attorney at Tobin Injury Law 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by calling 404-JUSTICE (404-587-8423) or using our online contact form.