Johnson v. All American Quality Foods, Inc.
340 Ga. App. 664
Ga. Ct. App.2017Background
- Plaintiff Balinda Johnson slipped on a puddle of liquid from packaged meat in a Food Depot supermarket and sued All American Quality Foods, Inc., the parent company; surveillance video showed she passed the area multiple times before the fall.
- Store inspection log showed an employee inspected the aisle ~38 minutes before the fall; an electronic inspection-report printout and manager affidavit were submitted by defendant to show hourly inspections were performed.
- After the fall store personnel documented a trail of blood and meat products; no employee was shown on video in the immediate area before the fall.
- All American moved for summary judgment arguing no actual or constructive knowledge and that a reasonable hourly inspection program was followed; Johnson argued genuine issues remained as to when the hazard was created and the reasonableness/execution of inspections.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for All American; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding a jury question existed on whether the inspection program was reasonable and was actually carried out.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive knowledge via unreasonable inspection program | Johnson: hourly inspections may be insufficient; jury can infer constructive notice if inspection procedure unreasonable or not actually followed | All American: had an hourly inspection program that was followed and thus no constructive knowledge | Reversed: jury question exists whether hourly inspections were reasonable given supermarket conditions; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Whether inspections were actually performed as recorded | Johnson: electronic report and manager affidavit insufficient to prove inspections occurred as recorded | All American: electronic Gleason ESP report and manager affidavit authenticate that inspections occurred | Majority: disputed sufficiency creates fact question; Dissent: affidavit and report adequately authenticated and trustworthy |
| Plaintiff’s superior knowledge (plaintiff should have seen the hazard) | Johnson: traversing the area earlier does not prove she knew or should have known of a nonstatic spill | All American: Johnson walked that aisle multiple times and thus had superior knowledge | Majority: prior traversal does not, as a matter of law, establish plaintiff knew of spill; not dispositive |
| Burden-shifting on duration of hazard after defendant shows inspection program | Johnson: need not show duration unless defendant proves inspections | All American: once defendant shows reasonable inspections, plaintiff must show how long substance remained | Court: owner must show inspections were actually carried out; if owner meets burden, plaintiff then must show duration — here material factual dispute remains |
Key Cases Cited
- Samuels v. CBOCS, Inc., 319 Ga. App. 421 (affirmed standard that owner must show inspections were actually carried out to avoid constructive knowledge inference)
- Food Lion v. Walker, 290 Ga. App. 574 (supermarket context may require more frequent inspections; reasonableness is fact-dependent)
- Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735 (summary judgment may be proper where plaintiff cannot establish actual or constructive knowledge)
- Burnett v. Ingles Mkts., 236 Ga. App. 865 (summary adjudication on inspection duty requires plain, palpable, indisputable proof inspections were in place, followed, and adequate)
- Hopkins v. Kmart Corp., 232 Ga. App. 515 (once defendant proves compliance with reasonable inspections, burden shifts to plaintiff to show how long substance remained)
- Davis v. Bruno’s Supermarkets, 263 Ga. App. 147 (inspections in supermarkets may need to occur more frequently than every 30 minutes)