All American Quality Foods, Inc. v. Smith
340 Ga. App. 393
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Oct. 16, 2012, Smith slipped in a Food Depot aisle in Covington, saw a pink liquid after falling, and was assisted by store employees; she did not see the liquid before the fall.
- Store video shows two children with open drink containers in the aisle at about 4:28–4:29 p.m.; Smith fell at 4:35:06 p.m., roughly 6–7 minutes later.
- Store employees performed a routine inspection from 3:53–4:05 p.m.; no evidence of inspection between that time and the fall.
- A store employee (believed to be the manager) stated he had seen children with open containers in the store, but timing and whether it was the same children in the video were unclear.
- Smith sued for premises liability; Food Depot moved for summary judgment arguing no actual or constructive knowledge of the spill and no foreseeability; trial court denied the motion and Food Depot obtained interlocutory appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant had constructive knowledge because spill existed long enough to be discovered by reasonable inspection | Smith: spill existed 6–7 minutes before fall; inspection policy evidence insufficient so defendant can’t show timely discovery | Food Depot: video shows spill only 6–7 minutes before fall; that short interval precludes constructive knowledge under inspection-lapse theory | Held: No — interval too short as a matter of law; summary judgment should have been granted to Food Depot |
| Whether defendant should have foreseen a spill from seeing children with open containers and taken precautions | Smith: manager saw children with open containers; foreseeability of spill and duty to act | Food Depot: timing/location of manager’s sighting unknown; children were not running in video; no history of similar incidents or violated policy | Held: No — plaintiff failed to show the manager could have foreseen or prevented the spill in time |
| Whether employees were in immediate vicinity and could have easily seen/corrected hazard | Smith: fall occurred near front/cashiers; employees were serving customers nearby | Food Depot: mere presence in vicinity is insufficient; no evidence employees could see the aisle or were positioned to detect spill | Held: No — plaintiff did not show employees were in position to have seen and corrected the spill |
| Whether summary judgment denial was proper given undisputed facts | Smith: factual disputes exist about manager’s knowledge and inspection adequacy | Food Depot: record is plain and undisputed that plaintiff failed to establish superior knowledge | Held: Reversed — summary judgment should have been granted for Food Depot |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Omondi, 294 Ga. 74 (Supreme Court of Ga.) (standard for de novo review and construing evidence for nonmoving party)
- Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735 (Ga. 1997) (owner/occupier duty and superior knowledge requirement)
- Ingles Markets, Inc. v. Carroll, 329 Ga. App. 365 (Ga. Ct. App.) (fall alone insufficient to establish liability)
- Barbour-Amir v. Comcast of Georgia/Virginia, Inc., 332 Ga. App. 279 (Ga. Ct. App.) (methods to prove constructive knowledge)
- Alterman Foods, Inc. v. Ligon, 246 Ga. 620 (Ga. 1980) (no duty to continuously patrol absent unusual danger)
- Medley v. Home Depot, Inc., 252 Ga. App. 398 (Ga. Ct. App.) (foreseeability where store knew of recurring dangerous conduct and failed to follow policy)
- Witt v. Ben Carter Properties, LLC, 303 Ga. App. 107 (Ga. Ct. App.) (hazard must have existed long enough that proprietor should have discovered it)
- Pirkle v. Quiktrip Corp., 325 Ga. App. 597 (Ga. Ct. App.) (short intervals between spill and inspection can support summary judgment)