Ingles Markets, Inc. v. Rhodes
340 Ga. App. 769
Ga. Ct. App.2017Background
- Rhodes slipped on an oily substance in Aisle 8 of an Ingles grocery store on November 13, 2012, and filed a premises-liability suit against Ingles.
- After the fall Rhodes observed a grease spot on the floor that she thought "looked like it had been there for a while" and was "trying to dry."
- She reported the incident to customer service; the manager Ellen Albo prepared an incident report noting Rhodes had "slipped in oil."
- Ingles had a written safety policy requiring visual inspections of the store at least every two hours; Albo testified she inspected the store (including Aisle 8) at about 2:00 p.m. and saw no oil.
- Rhodes reported the fall to Albo within ten minutes of that inspection; when Albo subsequently returned to Aisle 8 she observed small drops of oil on the floor and oil on the shelf where cooking oil was stocked.
- The trial court denied Ingles’s summary-judgment motion; Ingles obtained interlocutory review and appealed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ingles had superior (actual or constructive) knowledge of the oil spill | Rhodes contends the oil "looked like it had been there for a while," implying constructive knowledge or inadequate inspections | Ingles argues it lacked actual knowledge and that its routine inspection (within ~10 minutes) defeats constructive-knowledge liability | Held for Ingles: Rhodes failed to show actual knowledge or constructive knowledge under either theory |
| Whether an employee was present in the immediate area and could have seen/removed the substance | Rhodes offered no evidence of an employee being in the immediate area at the time of the spill | Ingles presented testimony that Albo inspected aisle 10 minutes earlier and no employee was shown to be present at the time of the fall | Held: No evidence an employee was present and could have removed the hazard |
| Whether the substance was on the floor long enough to be discovered by reasonable inspection | Rhodes relies on her subjective impression that the oil appeared "to be drying" to infer the oil had been present longer | Ingles points to Albo’s uncontradicted testimony that the aisle was clean no more than ten minutes before the fall and that inspections were regular and reasonable | Held: No competent evidence the oil was present long enough to establish constructive knowledge |
| Whether the inspection procedure was unreasonable given aisle’s risk | Rhodes argues conditions suggested the area might be unusually dangerous | Ingles notes focused attention on Aisle 8 during inspections and lack of evidence of unusual danger | Held: Inspection within a brief period (about 10 minutes) was adequate as a matter of law; no unusual danger shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Adamchick v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, 281 Ga. App. 677 (discusses summary-judgment review and proprietor superior-knowledge principle)
- Roberson v. Winn-Dixie Atlanta, 247 Ga. App. 825 (outlines two methods to prove constructive knowledge in slip-and-fall cases)
- Brown v. Host/Taco Joint Venture, 305 Ga. App. 248 (inspections conducted shortly before a fall can be adequate as a matter of law)
- Mazur v. Food Giant, 183 Ga. App. 453 (proprietor not required to patrol continuously absent unusual danger)
- Super Discount Mkts. v. Clark, 213 Ga. App. 132 (inspections within a short time before fall can defeat constructive-knowledge claim)
- Markham v. Schuster’s Enterprises, 268 Ga. App. 313 (knowledge that floor was wet did not create premises-liability issue when claimant testified to grease)
- Food Lion v. Walker, 290 Ga. App. 574 (question of fact may remain where store knew of inherently messy sale items and inspection reasonableness is disputed)