Barbour-Amir v. Comcast of georgia/virginia, Inc., 332 Ga. App. 279

Barbour‑Amir sued Comcast (premises liability) after tripping over an unknown child seated on the store floor and injuring her ankle, knees, and lower back.
Incident occurred in a narrow, crowded Comcast retail store while she was turning away from a teller window after paying a bill.
Store had customer service representatives behind teller windows and a contracted security guard on premises whose duties included monitoring the floor and maintaining order.
Depositions: Barbour‑Amir and the assisting CSR did not see the child prior to the fall; the security guard did not recall seeing children or receiving complaints that day.
Comcast produced an internal‑investigation affidavit showing no prior incidents or complaints involving children creating trip hazards; no evidence established how long the child had been seated.
Trial court granted Comcast summary judgment; Court of Appeals affirmed, holding plaintiff failed to show Comcast had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Actual knowledge: Did Comcast (or its employees) actually know the child was seated and posed a hazard?	Barbour‑Amir argued employees/guard must have seen the child (CSR could view floor; guard’s prior position suggests visibility).	Comcast showed CSR and guard testimony did not recall seeing the child; assertions of visibility were speculative.	No actual knowledge — testimony was speculative and insufficient to raise a jury issue.
Constructive knowledge: Could Comcast have discovered the hazard through reasonable inspection or because an employee was positioned to easily see it?	Barbour‑Amir argued employees/guard were in immediate vicinity and therefore had constructive notice.	Comcast showed no evidence how long child was there, no prior complaints, and a security guard was present as a reasonable inspection measure.	No constructive knowledge — no evidence duration of hazard or that employees were in a position to easily see and correct it.

Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (confirmation that lack of evidence on an essential element defeats the claim)
Ingles Markets v. Carroll, 329 Ga. App. 365 (distinguishing third‑party conduct hazards from static hazards; proprietor liability requires superior knowledge)
W.D. Enters. v. Barton, 218 Ga. App. 857 (no liability for unforeseeable, sudden third‑party conduct)
Elliott v. Burkhalter, 173 Ga. App. 749 (owner/employee knowledge of dangerous third‑party conduct is prerequisite to recovery)
Belk‑Hudson Co. v. Davis, 132 Ga. App. 237 (no liability where proprietor lacked notice of customers’ dangerous conduct)
Benefield v. Tominich, 308 Ga. App. 605 (constructive knowledge may be shown by duration of condition or employee proximity and ability to observe)
Mucyo v. Publix Super Markets, 301 Ga. App. 599 (employee must have been in position to easily see and correct hazard for constructive notice)