Donastorg v. Rainbow USA, Inc.
342 Ga. App. 215
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Precious Donastorg stepped on a thumbtack-sized anti-theft sensor pin in a Rainbow clothing store; the pin pierced her sandal and injured her foot.
- At the time, one employee was unloading inventory to Donastorg’s right and three employees stood behind registers 4–5 feet away; no one saw the pin before the accident and the corresponding sensor was never located.
- Rainbow trained employees to attach sensors, warned that pins on the floor could cause injury, received new inventory daily, and authorized attaching sensors on the storeroom floor during work hours.
- Store policy required sweeping twice daily (before opening and at closing) and otherwise “if needed”; the floor had been swept about six hours before the incident and Rainbow produced no evidence of inspections during business hours.
- Donastorg sued for premises liability alleging constructive knowledge; the trial court granted summary judgment to Rainbow for lack of superior knowledge, and Donastorg appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive knowledge — employee presence (could employees easily see/remove the pin?) | Employees were working in the immediate area and therefore could have discovered the pin. | Mere presence is insufficient; no evidence employees were in a position to have easily seen a small pin. | Court: No genuine issue on this prong — employee positions did not show they could easily have seen the pin. |
| Constructive knowledge — duration/inspection (did the pin remain long enough to be discovered?) | Rainbow had no inspection policy for the storeroom floor during business hours; ordinary diligence should have discovered the pin. | Sweeping twice daily (and ‘‘if needed’’) was a reasonable procedure; no evidence how long pin was on floor. | Court: Genuine issue of material fact exists; Rainbow failed to prove a reasonable inspection program was in place and carried out. |
| Visibility of hazard (was the pin inherently difficult to see?) | Donastorg testified she could not have seen the pin despite it being “in the middle of the floor” — but did not establish it was invisible to employees. | Plaintiff’s testimony that she couldn’t see the pin shows it was hard to detect, so employees could not easily have discovered it. | Court: Plaintiff’s testimony does not conclusively show the pin was undiscoverable during a reasonable inspection; factfinder must decide. |
| Summary judgment standard (who decides factual disputes?) | Where reasonable minds can differ about breach or notice, jury must decide. | Defendant sought dismissal as a matter of law. | Court: Reversed summary judgment; issues for jury remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735 (establishes the two-prong test for foreign-object premises liability)
- Food Lion v. Walker, 290 Ga. App. 574 (owner must show a reasonable inspection program was in place and actually followed to prevail on lack of constructive knowledge)
- Burnett v. Ingles Markets, 236 Ga. App. 865 (summary adjudication inappropriate absent plain, palpable, undisputable proof that inspections were adequate and followed)
- Chastain v. CF Ga. North DeKalb, 256 Ga. App. 802 (if a hazard could not be discovered during a reasonable inspection, no inference of notice arises)
- Samuels v. CBOCS, Inc., 319 Ga. App. 421 (distinguishes Chastain; lack of proof that inspection occurred can create a jury question)
- Kroger Co. v. Schoenhoff, 324 Ga. App. 619 (jury is factfinder where conflicting inferences exist)
- Williams v. GK Mahavir, Inc., 314 Ga. App. 758 (reversed summary judgment where cleaning only "if needed" created factual issue as to reasonableness)
- Rodriquez v. City of Augusta, 222 Ga. App. 383 (inspection done minutes before fall supported summary judgment where substance not visible)
- Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (discussed in dissent re: plaintiff’s burden to prove essential elements)